Correct me if I'm wrong, but a government (any government) starting to use open source might mean that they would get involved with open source development. Would anyone really want that? I mean, most government beauracracies seem to have the midas touch in reverse...everything they touch turns to shit.
Additionally, Imagine if governments start to use open source software, governments including the Feds. Doesn't that mean that at some stage in the future a Director of Homeland Security might just make the realisation that the open source solution they are using and participating in is openly available to them as well as terrorists...terrorists who might have found an undeclared security hole in that open source code...a hole which could be used to infiltrate the government.
A business, making this realisation, would be in for a costly move off the platform. Governments tend just to legislate in these cases. All of a sudden, all that open exchange of information is a security threat, sites like SourceForge are shut down and the contnt natioinalised and...hmmm...sorry...I think my tin foil hat is slipping around a bit there.
...but you seem my point, right. Sure, governments would save a packet being involved in Open Source, but when they need a neck to choke due to a problem, or to cover their own incompetence, whose neck gets the treatment?
You make some interesting points but allow me to share a problem that I am experiencing at the moment.
I work for a large Australian bank as a project manager. My team is dealing with a particularly tricky vendor who has a virtual (in the traditional sence) monopoly on the market for fixed income treasury ststems.
The vendor is slow to respond to service calls and their application (IMHO and experience) sucks ass. We don't have an alternative except to build a solution ourselves. I am quite keen to go the second route.
I am convinced that we could build something for what we pay in lincence fees to the vendor, and do it rather quickly....and then I had my brainstorm. Why not do it open source?
The asolution we would need to build would have no Sale value to us, but it has trememdous 'use value'. The bank would have to spend the money to develop anyway and by releasing to a site like 'sourceforge' we may attract some developers who might like to participate. I would be driving the team here to meet our own internal deadlines and so the OSS community would have to run to that schedule, but so what? Some people will, but many wont. For the addition of one more developer (to a proposed team of 5) would result in a noticable improvement.
The reason marketing would be important to this venture is that i would seek to make the project known to the other major banks in Aus and around the world. If enough organisations take up the software we produce, then interbank communication could theoretically be improved, leading to cost savings for all.
The other ancillary benefit would be to break down an overcharging monopoly or force them to change their model so that they are more competitive. To be honest though, software in the treasury management area should be free and available anyway. It's the grunt work of banking and most systems are basically the same, performing almost identical functions.
So, in a situation like this, marjeting to users is important, at least until you get people involved. Then word of mouth would take over, I guess.
Now, the other problem is convincing my bosses that giving away IP that they have paid for will actually result in quantifiable, bottom line benefits....Many of you may as well exhale now!!::Faded
Slashdot Mirror
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a government (any government) starting to use open source might mean that they would get involved with open source development. Would anyone really want that? I mean, most government beauracracies seem to have the midas touch in reverse...everything they touch turns to shit.
...but you seem my point, right. Sure, governments would save a packet being involved in Open Source, but when they need a neck to choke due to a problem, or to cover their own incompetence, whose neck gets the treatment?
::Faded
Additionally, Imagine if governments start to use open source software, governments including the Feds. Doesn't that mean that at some stage in the future a Director of Homeland Security might just make the realisation that the open source solution they are using and participating in is openly available to them as well as terrorists...terrorists who might have found an undeclared security hole in that open source code...a hole which could be used to infiltrate the government.
A business, making this realisation, would be in for a costly move off the platform. Governments tend just to legislate in these cases. All of a sudden, all that open exchange of information is a security threat, sites like SourceForge are shut down and the contnt natioinalised and...hmmm...sorry...I think my tin foil hat is slipping around a bit there.
You make some interesting points but allow me to share a problem that I am experiencing at the moment. I work for a large Australian bank as a project manager. My team is dealing with a particularly tricky vendor who has a virtual (in the traditional sence) monopoly on the market for fixed income treasury ststems. The vendor is slow to respond to service calls and their application (IMHO and experience) sucks ass. We don't have an alternative except to build a solution ourselves. I am quite keen to go the second route. I am convinced that we could build something for what we pay in lincence fees to the vendor, and do it rather quickly....and then I had my brainstorm. Why not do it open source? The asolution we would need to build would have no Sale value to us, but it has trememdous 'use value'. The bank would have to spend the money to develop anyway and by releasing to a site like 'sourceforge' we may attract some developers who might like to participate. I would be driving the team here to meet our own internal deadlines and so the OSS community would have to run to that schedule, but so what? Some people will, but many wont. For the addition of one more developer (to a proposed team of 5) would result in a noticable improvement. The reason marketing would be important to this venture is that i would seek to make the project known to the other major banks in Aus and around the world. If enough organisations take up the software we produce, then interbank communication could theoretically be improved, leading to cost savings for all. The other ancillary benefit would be to break down an overcharging monopoly or force them to change their model so that they are more competitive. To be honest though, software in the treasury management area should be free and available anyway. It's the grunt work of banking and most systems are basically the same, performing almost identical functions. So, in a situation like this, marjeting to users is important, at least until you get people involved. Then word of mouth would take over, I guess. Now, the other problem is convincing my bosses that giving away IP that they have paid for will actually result in quantifiable, bottom line benefits....Many of you may as well exhale now!! ::Faded