Slashdot Mirror
Should All Government IT Systems Be Using Open Source Software? (linuxjournal.com)
Writing at Linux Journal, Glyn Moody reports that dozens of government IT systems are switching to open source software.
"The fact that this approach is not already the norm is something of a failure on the part of the Free Software community..." One factor driving this uptake by innovative government departments is the potential to cut costs by avoiding constant upgrade fees. But it's important not to overstate the "free as in beer" element here. All major software projects have associated costs of implementation and support. Departments choosing free software simply because they believe it will save lots of money in obvious ways are likely to be disappointed, and that will be bad for open source's reputation and future projects.
Arguably as important as any cost savings is the use of open standards. This ensures that there is no lock-in to a proprietary solution, and it makes the long-term access and preservation of files much easier. For governments with a broader responsibility to society than simply saving money, that should be a key consideration, even if it hasn't been in the past.... Another is transparency. Recently it emerged that Microsoft has been gathering personal information from 300,000 government users of Microsoft Office ProPlus in the Netherlands, without permission and without documentation.
He includes an inspiring quote from the Free Software Foundation Europe about code produced by the government: "If it is public money, it should be public code as well. But when it comes to the larger issue about the general usage of proprietary vs. non-proprietary software -- what do Slashdot's readers think?
Should all government IT systems be using open source software?
"The fact that this approach is not already the norm is something of a failure on the part of the Free Software community..." One factor driving this uptake by innovative government departments is the potential to cut costs by avoiding constant upgrade fees. But it's important not to overstate the "free as in beer" element here. All major software projects have associated costs of implementation and support. Departments choosing free software simply because they believe it will save lots of money in obvious ways are likely to be disappointed, and that will be bad for open source's reputation and future projects.
Arguably as important as any cost savings is the use of open standards. This ensures that there is no lock-in to a proprietary solution, and it makes the long-term access and preservation of files much easier. For governments with a broader responsibility to society than simply saving money, that should be a key consideration, even if it hasn't been in the past.... Another is transparency. Recently it emerged that Microsoft has been gathering personal information from 300,000 government users of Microsoft Office ProPlus in the Netherlands, without permission and without documentation.
He includes an inspiring quote from the Free Software Foundation Europe about code produced by the government: "If it is public money, it should be public code as well. But when it comes to the larger issue about the general usage of proprietary vs. non-proprietary software -- what do Slashdot's readers think?
Should all government IT systems be using open source software?
>"... you have a piece of software that doesn't work. You call in the highly expensive support from the vendor and they won't be able to do much more than shrug at it. It's something I have seen at large companies and very large vendors.""
THIS
I can attest that "support" by major proprietary software companies is just as hit-or-miss as it is in the FOSS world. There is support that is great, and support that is expensive as hell and yet practically useless. So it is hard to generalize.
One of the best models yet is the RedHat one- which is why they have been so successful. It is FOSS, so MORE THAN ONE ENTITY can actually support it- the main one, additional ones, freelance people, and your own staff. This is almost impossible with proprietary systems. It is like having the best of all worlds- multiple support options, free use options, good free support options, good paid support options, very little "lock-in", less forced upgrades, ability to see code, ability to extend, ability to share.
OpenSSL.
node.js last year
PEAR this year
Open Source also has some fairly substantial supply chain security problems. The delivery model, and update cadence can also be pretty terrible.
The requirements of using something at home are vastly different than for the government, and scale becomes an issue. Your either paying a closed source vendor to manage this, or your bloating the size of your IT team and paying for it that way.
Using open source to save money is a myth.
If you had an invention, you had to licence it to a competitor, or it would not be bought Typically, government procurement would buy from multiple suppliers, quantities in inverse proportion to price, to ensure that multiple suppliers would always be available.
I am not sure when this practice stopped - but it seems that things are no longer done this way - and as a result, we get Microsoft, Oracle, and Intel (or, to use the technical term: "totally shafted").
If that is not the decline and fall of civilization as we know it, I don't know what is.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
Except Canvas is AGPL licensed.
https://github.com/instructure...
Sure, you'll loose those nice integrations with Big Blue Button (conferences tool), some of the Speed Grader stuff, the equation editor, the "record from webcam" function in the HTML editor, etc. since those are licensed services or hosted via 3rd party contracts, but you can also replace them yourself.
Strangely, what the college I work for pays for Canvas hosting and support (not a license fee) is about what we paid Angel/Blackboard for license and hosting, but the software is better and our support experience is better AND we get a LOT more resources.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Windows is not open source, but users and developers are cheaper.
You're ignoring the cost of running Windows. Not just the up front costs, but the maintenance costs, and the lost opportunity costs when closed source makes something difficult or impractical.
I'd rather not pay the taxes needed to support all OSS.
OSS supports YOU at the same time you support IT. It's not all outlay, you get the software back, and you get improvements from others.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"