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?
>> Should all government IT systems be using open source software?
All IT systems should be using open source software.
aaaaaaa
The problem is that government systems tend to handle all kinds of really important information, and proprietary vendors have shown over the years over and over again that they simply are not trustworthy, and that the people responsible are not up to par WRT keeping them safeguarded.
Evidence? The massive hits by ransomware against various types of government agencies ranging from the NHS to the Alaskan administration, the latter I believe got hit so bad they were considering reverting to typewriters. And this is just the tip of the iceberg of the continual data leakage we never get to hear about.
Making sure the systems run on verifiable code were you don't have to trust external parties should be the starting point for every state run system. That would be intelligent spending. The government has a lot of information on all of us, and by collecting it it also collects the responsibility to protect it. Something which just isn't possible with proprietary software, Microsoft's latest offerings in particular.
Open standards yes, since you avoid lock in. Open source maybe. Does it save money over the long term?
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
This isn't a question of efficiency. It's a question being able to know 100% what the government is doing. There are proprietary breathalysers that sent people to prison and then turned out to be buggy. The manufacturers wouldn't let people see their source code so the defendants will often have never found out about this. If your town is not having it's road built because the Office356 regression function has a bug you will never be able to see that.
For democratic control you need both open (so you can see inside) and free (so you can test it) software.
Nope, Windows is not open source, but users and developers are cheaper. I'd rather not pay the taxes needed to support all OSS.
In an ideal world where faries get you off daily? Sure. But in reality, no.
That is nonsense. Nonsense often repeated, but still untrue.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
is security, then that would be just an example of security hy obscurity.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I see the same in higher education. There's a number of things we all need (like an electronic learning environment) but we buy it from vendors like Canvas or Blackboard, which is expensive and inflexible. Same for grading systems, scheduling, course guides, human resource, etc.
I think we should have moved to a cooperative structure for these things long ago and all pay into a group that develops the software and then releases it open source. Since this can be decided at the university system level there's less risk of freeriding, and since universities employ a lot of smart people who like tinkering there will be a lot of community contributions.
No.
Public/government IT systems should use open data standards and open APIs so that data is not tied to one vendors system.
Having that you can use whatever licensed software that does the job and is economically viable.
If you need the source code to find an exploit, just give up, kid. The black hat doesn't fit you.
You don't have to trust an open source project, especially not when you have the resources of a national state behind you. It's all out there in the open, you don't have to take anyone's word for anything. All it takes is the actual will to shore things up.
Nobody said you should use any open source project for anything without vetting it. Remember, we're talking about governments here, different ballpark.
I think you missed the point: governments can afford to pay for a team with the necessary skills to maintain the open source software in the manner that most benefits them. However, they only need pay once.
With closed source, they need to pay through the nose possibly repeatedly for different departments, and still don't get what they want.
However, this does require a degree of sanity in government, and I am not holding my breath on that account.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
universities employ a lot of smart people who like tinkering
There was a time that you had universities producing nice things like pine (now alpine/realpine, because the UW stopped development). Nowadays, the smart people have too much work on their hands. Professors have to profess, which means lots of articles and books need to be written. Tech support teams have a lot more on their hands in the era of BYOD and not much more in the way of resources. I used to be a tinkery sort of person, and now I'm busy writing instead, so I have no time to tinker. Tinkering won't get me tenure.
Using open source to save money is a myth.
OSS doesn't always save money, but may. Open standards may allow you to change supplier, though, and allows you to shop around the market better if others are using open standards. If the software you are using does not use open standards then you may have issues with integration, which can cost money.
It seriously offends me when I download something from a government Web site and discover that I cannot read it without buying a copy of Microsoft Word or some other proprietary software. It is not my government's job to guarantee Microsoft a market for their products.
As a retired costly inefficient public service employee I totally agree. Use open source where it makes sense. In the case of the DOD, I think they should have their own OSs hardened and maintained by a single department. For most other agencies, they should be in the cloud as much as possible and have an agency making sure everything is configured properly. One thing about open source that I found over my years in IT is that it's great until you put it into production. Just because it's open source, you better make sure you have a support contract with a reliable company. Free is not always free.