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?
Recently a Gartner report on open source in The Netherlands made an interesting case why with the current legislation the Dutch (and likely European) governments could not contribute to open source software. Governments may use it, but a software developer disguised as civil servant must never be provide patches or features back to the open source project, nor is the government allowed to publish their work in public, publication should be strictly limited to other governments. This would be prohibited due to unfair competition with software suppliers that build closed source software not having the advantage of government support. Now the case of no-vender-lockin still remains, but unless we first change these kind of laws, harnessing the true power of open source: collaboration, is legally not possible.
Support Eachother, Copy Dutch Property!
>> 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.
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.
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
Honestly, I've come to think that's a bit of a cop-out. If the government can't use FOSS, then I think they should fund the software they need, which should then also be open source.
That may sound excessive, but it's an investment. It accomplishes a bunch of stuff. First, over the long term, it does away with licensing costs. It also allows them to access the source code and verify its security, and then make modifications as needed. Also very importantly, it frees them from proprietary interests. They're not beholden to do things the way their vendor wants and serving their vendor's interests.
Also, whatever improvements they make to the FOSS are likely to be needed somewhere else. Improving public software serves the public interest.
The reality is, buying proprietary software may be "efficient" when looking at the short-term immediate cost, but it's much harder to say what will be efficient and cheap when viewed over the next several decades. I suspect that investing in public software now will pay off several times over in the next 50 years, and that's the sort of timeline the government should be considering.
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
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.
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.'"