Slashdot Mirror
Quebec Govt Sued For Ignoring Free Software
Mathieu Lutfy writes "The CBC is reporting that 'Quebec's open-source software association is suing the provincial government, saying it is giving preferential treatment to Microsoft Corp. by buying the company's products rather than using free alternatives. ... Government buyers are using an exception in provincial law that allows them to buy directly from a proprietary vendor when there are no options available, but Facil said that loophole is being abused and goes against other legal requirements to buy locally.' The group also has a press release in English."
I completely agree - our school has a phenomenal amount of money spent on Microsoft and other proprietary licenses (300+ Windows machines with office and photoshop elements, 5-10 windows servers (eugh), and the monstrosity that is SharePoint to "manage" everything... I haven't seen the bill, but it must cost a fortune. Sure, I can understand needing Windows for now - there are _some_ classes that use software other than web and word processing. But spending money on Office when OO.o does absolutely everything we use it for? Inexcusable.
Actually, it's really just a way for them to legally cook their books. While they never provide support* on any of their consumer products, they're still allowed to have a ton of unearned revenue since they only recognize 1/12th of the purchase price each month, or however long you're supported for. Assuming it's one year and a copy of Windows is $300 (I was at Staples today, and apparently it is at least for some version of XP), that means that after a month, they've got $25 of earned revenue and $275 of unearned revenue on the books. Basically, it fucks with the numbers and makes them look richer than they really are.
Of course this isn't at all specific to Microsoft - most companies that provide some sort of support contract do the same (Best Buy extended warranties? Oh yeah). I'd suggest they abuse it a bit more than most, but what do you expect?
*you know what I mean here - I'm sure there's the odd instance of it happening, but by and large the only time you get them on the phone is for an activation problem.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Depends on the IT guy's skills in explaining things - or, indeed, 'selling' the open-source solutions. Obviously I'm generalizing here, but most IT people aren't overly business-savvy, so they're often of little help when it comes to explaining why X solution is better than Y. Management doesn't care that CrapSoftwareY is talking to a set of cobbled-together Access tables where DecentSoftwareX functions off of a proper relational database unless the IT guy evaluating the software can explain the BUSINESS benefits of one over the other (and "users won't end up going batshit insane over file locking when trying to hit stupidfile.mdb over a samba share" won't cut it).
Open source guys can evangelize all they want, but if they really want to see adoption, they'll need to sell it. Not via cold calls, but at least throw some copy online that the IT staff can use when they're pitching it against whatever half-assed proprietary product that's backed by a sales department. And let me tell you, MS has a damn good sales department. /used to work in software sales, and outselling open-source is trivially easy for those reasons
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
But you can have a single copy of OO.o installed on a file server from which all the clients run the software (ro). In that case, you only need to update the software in one place.
Naturally, preferences and documents are saved on the client.
Put identity in the browser.
could create thousands of jobs
I'm a little fuzzy on the details from TFA but... what exactly would these jobs entail? I mean, if some govt. office is running MS Office now and have 100 employees, switching to OpenOffice would create 100 openings more? Or what?
Sounds to me like an emotional argument rather than something based on fact.
The twitter monologues. Click on my homepage and be amazed.
Right now money is being spent on licenses. This money goes out of the province (indeed out of the country) to a company that sells the software. The money is then either reinvested into building the next upgrade, a new products, used for corporate overhead or designated as "profit".
The TFA notes that the amount of money spent on software in the 6 months from February to June was 25 million dollars.
If free software could be used to replace the proprietary software, then the money could be:
1) used for other government programs
2) used for training
3) used for local support
4) used for enhancing the software for new features
5) used for lining the wallets of local entrepreneurs.
But in these cases the money stays local. Since the government almost always spends all the money that it has, in all cases except for #5 the result is that the money ends up as salaries for other employees. And since this is money over and above money that they are already spending on salaries, it means new jobs.
If we work out the numbers, let's say we give the greedy entrepreneurs a million dollars. Then let's say that the other uses result in something close to 20% for equipment and capital costs.
This leaves about 20 million dollars. At a loaded
labour rate of 100,000 dollars a years (which is generous given that we've already taken out 4 million for equipment and capital costs), this gives us 200 new jobs.
So you are right, "thousands" of new jobs is probably not realistic. But if they can really reduce the outgo of software licensing money to foreign companies, it is not an exaggeration to say that hundreds of jobs would be the result.
Ok, I'm not Canadian, but this applies to everyone when their local government is pissing away money for no good reason.
WTF?! Do you even following politics?
Business is greatest influence force in politics.
This is classical form of corruption: business makes a undertable deal with local politicians so that they buy their products. The statue that all procurement deals have to be public and open to competition - is the most often ignored statue. (Also popular (in 3rd world) are preferential investments, but they are quite hard to hide and rarely happen in developed countries.)
This is essentially how politicians make money. Or you thought that they simply do their thing out of pure altruism and patriotism? [Sarcasm intended.]
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
When time or special circumstance doesn't allow bids, there certainly needs to be a detailed report on the reasons one vendor was chosen over another. Someone needs to put his ass on the line and say "Symphony, StarOffice, Openoffice.org, and Gnome Office don't meet our needs" for reasons a, b, and c. When an accountant comes back to audit the department, he'll back those up or pay the price.
In theory you are correct however that is not the way Government departments work. In Australia we have a taxation year between 1st July to the 30th June and at the beginning of the tax year most Government departments receive a budget allocation. It would be a very courageous IT manager that could go to his/her department head and say we can slash our budget by upto say 60% by choosing open software such as Open Office and the savings could be spent on upgrading the IT infrastructure.
What normally happens in the above scenario is the upgrade never happens because there are few people in authority that will sanction this since they perceive that the old hardware is good enough because you normally can extend the life of the current equipment with open software and the IT managers budget is slashed. Of course when the time comes to replace the ageing equipment the IT manger is accused of overspending.
Most IT managers are well aware (or should be aware) of this double standard and to keep their jobs and credibility take the easy way and buy Microsoft products since all senior department heads know about Microsoft and appear quite amenable to a three or four year hardware and possibly software update cycle even though in the long term it is much more expensive, however this can be easily and consistently budgeted for with only an acceptable increase per year.
Actually it is very easy for IT department heads to justify proprietary software over open software since they only have to point to many Microsoft and so called unbiased web sites that show Microsoft software has a much better Total Cost of Ownership than open software. The "How to Lie with Statistics" technique.
Do I think this is right? I don't but that is Government business politics for you.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.
Finally, there's the fundamental assumption at the general level here which is fully out of place. Trade promotes efficiency and specialization in an ideal environment.
You were doing so well until your tangent. Here's the real final flaw in his argument:
Using your own natural resources when it's much cheaper to buy similar quality commodities from elsewhere is dumb. With software, there's no such inherent geographical bias. I'm unaware of any fundamental reason why a programmer in Quebec is less intelligent or capable than a programmer in Redmond, so I see no reason for Quebec to export their money to Redmond to get an item they could otherwise get locally.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
> I am going to assert that Open Source software has not previously been successfully deployed as an enterprise solution
> to a large government's IT infrastructure.
And you would be wrong. In 2000 I was the lone wolf howling in the wilderness. Today there probably isn't an agency in our state's government that doesn't have a Linux box here or there. The main state webserver is now running it, the state library has been there for years. The school board in my parish is totally penetrated in the backend as is the parish to the north. I contract for our parish and know one of the IT guys to the north so I can speak first hand about those.... but we aren't alone.
That said, the desktop is a case of fighting the FUD amongst the teachers. I really don't think students would care, but most people don't realize that the government schools are designed for and run for the sole benefit of the teachers. Students are just there to justify the whole game. So until we find a way to get the teachers to buy in the desktop belongs to Microsoft forever, and teachers (as a group) don't DO anything unless they have absolutely no option. So unless we hit a budget crunch so hard it becomes a case of Windows or RIFs that bite deeply enough to get teachers they will veto anything that would require even an hour of retraining. And again, for those who don't know better, that isn't possible because teachers are the absolute last place cuts are made. They would discontinue the use of computers in schools entirely, RIF the whole IT budget, eliminate building maintaince and stop buying textbooks before they allowed one teacher to lose out on their annual cost of living increase.
Democrat delenda est