|
|
| Massachusetts and Open Source in Government |
 |
|
Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 10:27 AM EST
|
The Boston Globe's Hiawatha Bray writes somewhat breathlessly about Massachusetts maybe deciding to use open source instead of proprietary software. I venture to guess, after reading the article, that he doesn't use Linux. He also has not been following the Linux in government story as closely as Groklaw, I'm guessing: This is no idle threat. Texas, Oregon, and Delaware are talking about going open source. Overseas, one of Australia's six states has passed legislation mandating the use of open-source code and similar plans are popping up from Peru to China. It's a long way from here to the death of traditional software. But if one state or nation succeeds in switching, it sends a message to every other government and large business -- this open-source stuff is for real. China already made the decision to go Linux. And there is no reason both proprietary and free/open source software can't coexist, unless you believe that given an open cell door the world will run screaming away from Microsoft and other proprietary vendors. If you believe that, it should tell you something right there. Here is South Africa's level-playing-field strategy, which has been endorsed by the Center of Open Source and Government, just to show Bray another option. Bray is right about one thing, though. Things are heating up and interest in Linux is global.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: AlleyOooop on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:23 AM EST |
There's an article coming out from BusinessWeek about the gaining popularity of
Linux in Asia, and how it has MS scrambling - good reading.
<http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jan2004/tc2004016_4446.htm>
;
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Alan Bell on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:25 AM EST |
as the article points out the smaller suppliers of software that perform
specialised tasks have no great threat from open source alternatives and also
most could open source their code. They still get paid consultancy rates for
developing applications but the output is open source. The GPL does not require
the source code to be posted on the internet for all, it just requires that the
people you distribute it to have the right to the source and the right to
perform further distribution. They don't have a right to get it for free, but
anyone who has it has a right to give it for free if they wish. Small developers
of bespoke applications have nothing to fear by the GPL.
Alan.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kcassidy on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:25 AM EST |
I read the article, and maybe I just missed it as I am only on my first cup of
coffee for the day, but where does the article indicate (from the memo or
otherwise) that the entire system is going open source? Yes, it said it would
abandon the "use of traditional computer software" but it does not
say that everything would move.
I am not familiar with the author of this article, so perhaps others are. How
familiar is he with technology? Does he really think, from the article, that a
MySQL database runs quicker than an Oracle database? For many governments and
organizations, they enjoy features such as stored procedures which MySQL does
not support. The cost of transitioning everything would be just as much as the
cost of paying for the licensing of the proprietary software, never mind the
cost of training their IT staff in the proper maintenance of Linux, MySQL, etc.
I did not get the intent to move away from all proprietary software, but instead
move to some other pieces of open source software, such as OpenOffice. With
MS's new licensing scheme for the new Office as well as their intent to not
allow other programs to create new office documents using other programs (ie not
using an approved standard), it is possible this was why this decision was made;
there is no clear indicator as to everything being transition, but neither is
there any indicator as to a partial transition. The wording of the article makes
the intent of the move somewhat ambiguous, and (as I said), I am not familiar
with the technical background of the author, who appears to have just tossed in
the buzzword of Linux into the article to gain some attentin.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shaun on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:30 AM EST |
Our own Government embraces Open Source as well. The NSA even has their own
version of Linux with added security features people can download.
NASA uses linux to develop designs and engineering systems for spacecraft. The
DOD is experimenting with Linux to help see if can cut costs for their global
network satellite systems. The one that connects all the ships and field
commands together.
Open Source is a valuable resource for the United States and other countries.
It's very nature allows for the development of specific controls and features
that are needed by the various entities.
SCO thinks they deserve a piece of this and that they should have control over
it as well. I doubt they truly understand anything.
--Shaun
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jgilyeat on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:31 AM EST |
Because if open-source software is good enough for Massachusetts, it's
probably good enough for General Motors -- or for Cindy's Bar &
Grill.
Something I'd -really- like to point out about this particular
statement: OSS is -ALREADY- good enough for GM, and Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler,
and other automakers. They're using Linux clusters for significant engineering
work, including modelling how air flows over a given automobile design,
collision effect modelling, etc.
Let's not get into the large number of medical
research institutions and engineering schools using Linux clusters.
As
for the rest of the article, he points out both sides of the argument, but
certainly leans towards the "but it'll hurt the economy" argument.
1. The
companies that will be most directly harmed will be those who do change with the
program. Oracle runs on Linux, and if I have a large database (and a couple
million records ain't large), I'm not going to use MySQL, but continue to use
Oracle on the new platform.
2. Less spending on IT could mean more money for
other projects without having to raise taxes -and- while still accomplishing
everything in an effective manner. I'm not so naive to believe that it'll lead
to an actual tax cut...we're talking about Taxachusettes here ;)
3. Since
when was competition a -bad- thing? Sun has a Linux solution, so their not out
as at least a hardware vendor, for example.
It boils down to the
argument that OpenSource will drive the software industry out of business, and
that's not really the case. There are -some- applications where payware is going
to be better than an open alternative. In those cases where the open alternative
is better, support still needs to be provided (hence RedHat's business model,
which is -finally- showing some success). Business and governments will pay for
support and warranties, even if the underlying application is "free".
MySQL, for instance, is probably an even -better- example of this than
Redhat is, really :)
-
J.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: belzecue on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:41 AM EST |
| Let's not forget that Hiawatha Bray is one of the Magnificent Seven
who have actually, truly, I-kid-you-not seen the infringing code. Well, what
they were told was infringing code way back then.
And Bray also got in on
the May
conference call with a question about Novell and the Unix copyright spat.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: maco on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:47 AM EST |
That free/open software hurts the economy is 180 degrees from truth.
1. The rise of MS precipatate the loss of thousands of programming jobs,
whatwith all the products being overrun.
2. The MS tax, like any other exhorbatant tax (such as the high cost of
healthcare), is bad for the economy.
3. Not to mention the tremendous cost the the economy bred by MS insecure
software, made much more vulnerable by monoculture.
And this is only the tip of the iceburg.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 11:49 AM EST |
This is all about MS fighting to keep Linux from making inroads any way and on
any beach-head it can. MS belongs to these software groups and then gets them
to say alarmist things and makes it sound like All software vendors have
something to fear - when it is only them that will loose. Have no illusions, MS
is in a battle on all fronts against linux and it has vast resources and
influences to draw upon. Here they are staring political fires within the
Commonwealth and standing back to see if that will slow the rising tide of Linux
and other Open Source sortware
I was pleased that the author pointed out that most have nothing to fear.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: linuxbikr on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 12:58 PM EST |
| Governments should have a moral and ethical obligation to their constiuents to
minimize the expenduture of tax dollars and maximize the return-on-investment on
the spending of those dollars.
FOSS and proprietary worlds can co-exist.
The issue for use of software in government, in my view, is transparency of the
data. Data used in governement, especially that intended for public consumption
(such as documents), should be made available to the public in a format that is
unencumbered by proprietary requirements or can be converted to format that is
open. Taxpayers and users of data don't care how it is stored, only the ways
that they can access and use it.
Microsoft fears the prospect of moves to
FOSS because it loosens their hold on an entire user base. Governments who
aren't aware of alternatives will simply use MS formats for data because they
assume that everyone runs MS software. Or, in a worst case scenario (as has
been proposed in parts of the UK), MANDATE the use of MS software to access
government data, services and programs. By doing that, not only does MS lock-in
a fat government contract, they also lock in the entire taxpayer base as well
since MS can influence the government to adopt the "latest and greatest" and
create an upgrade side-effect within the population who have to have it as well
in order to do business with the government.
FOSS breaks that lock and
even if FOSS isn't used in the government, it does at least force the government
to think about what it is doing. Personally, I think it should be law that ANY
AND ALL data, programs and services made available by and intended to be used to
work with the governement MUST be freely available to the population in terms of
cost and license. If the government wants us to interact with them, then they
better provide the tools or point us to places where we can acquire them freely.
Otherwise, they better be paying for the necessary software so we can work with
them. As a taxpayer, I feel it is the government's obligation to do no
less.
If they want to run SQL Server in the DMV or Oracle in the Tax
Department, let them. But if I want to get DMV statistics, in better be
available in an open format (CSV, XML, formatted text, etc) and not in Microsoft
Excel. Likewise for a tax publication (PDF, PostScript, XML, OpenOffice SXW vs.
Microsoft Word). The tools in question to view or work with the data may be
proprietary, but they are free and FOSS tools exist to convert those
"proprietary" formats to fully open ones. If Microsoft changes the file format
of Word and Excel (which they do frequently), OpenOffice is broken and will need
a new filter to be reverse-engineered. Until that happens, the taxpayers will
need the latest version of Office to view those documents. A win for Microsoft
but a disaster for the taxpayers and the government in both perception and
waste.
The battle in government isn't about proprietary vs. free, it's about
open data vs. locked-in and closed data. Just because Microsoft has a 95% lock
on the desktop market doesn't mean all of those desks have Office (most don't).
A lot of people are going to get really upset if they are forced to shell out a
couple hundred dollars for Office and have to use IE just so they can access the
government (especially if the government decides online is the only way a
particular program or service will be available).
Vendor lock-in is a
scourge. I fight it everytime I work with vendors in the corporate world.
Vendors that don't provide some modicum of open access to our own data I will
not select or work with. That's a hard enough battle in one company. If
Microsoft had its way in the real world, the only standards would be theirs and
we'll all be paying the price for our government's lack of foresight and
courage.
Never, ever forget the fact that the government works for you! The
dollars they are spending are YOURS! Make them justify those expenditures. If
they can get more value for less money, it means smaller deficits and lower
taxes the next time around. Remind the government of their obligations to you
as a taxpayer and ensure they know that this money they are spending isn't
coming from some endless river that can be thrown millions at a time to a vendor
because they want to. Demand openness, demand open standards, demand freely
available and unencumbered data formats. At least now it seems that the demands
are being heard. Whether they will be heeded and met remains to be seen. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 02:32 PM EST |
Listen to the hogs squeal as they try to articulate that taxes and tax spending
are ok just as long as hogs are not the ones paying the taxes. Too funny!
<a href="http://www.atr.org/">Grover Norquist</a>, meet
your new pal, the law of unintended consequences. Now try to explain to your
fatcat buddies how they're going to recover their $34 billion in lost
revenue...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Waaay OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:00 PM EST
- Waaay OT - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:08 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: bbaston on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:16 PM EST |
PJ and Groklawyers everywhere,
-- polit-intro is only for perspective --
-- and I don't mean to sound so alarmist --
Did you know that the poor (I can say poor because that's where I live, and
I've seen no poorer area in the U.S. than east and south Arkansas) State of
Arkansas has probably the most automated state government in the U.S.A.? Problem
is, the systems are becoming more and more closed as proprietary vendors try to
ensure lock-in of their services, and ignore the increasing burdens that lock-in
places on end users (my fellow citizens).
I think it is important to know that, underlying the movement of worldwide
goverments toward having the source code, is the return of CONTROL it gives to
all (both the goverments and its citizens). Even dictatorial and otherwise
closed governments favor openness in their tools (ie, China).
Because governments get the source code instead of the run-around, and because
support as well as original authors are spread all around the world,
administrators recognize that they have the ultimate flexibility in meeting
changing needs. This assumes that the Internet doesn't become any more
propietary!
Government offices, in general, are like small business in their customized
needs and number of locally-shared computers. Software _quality_ is no longer a
question thanks to the dominance of Apache and increasing cross-platform use of
OpenOffice.org, for example.
Want a list of advantages of open rather than proprietary software? Open
software gives:
Open availability to its citizens,
the ultimate in software flexibility,
unlimited continuation of support,
constant and painless improvement,
undeniably better security,
return of CONTROL to the users, and
predictable budget costs.
These are what sell to government and small businesses. Now more than ever
before, we can more effectively argue that GNU/Linux offers the above, meaningul
quality and feature improvements, and _return_of_CONTROL_ to the users.
I feel urgency here in helping small business and government field offices keep
data secured for their citizen's benefit. The next generation of Microsoft
products will, more than ever before, move IP into their domain and out of our
own control. Will we end up paying rent on our tax records filled with the
government?
There are now clear examples (see WinCE license changes) that proprietary
software provider see only _their_ control as being important, and see our needs
so benefitted by their work that our time and knowledge is without value outside
their software!
Of course, the up side is that Microsoft may let friendly governments know
who's planning terrorism in threating countries (this not be a joke)!
My involvement in computers is (as you guessed) helping small business in south
Arkansas be more profitable through computer networks. Remember the favorite
client question, "Why can't the computer do business like I do?"
That really was once the main objection of small business' adoption of
computers, and now seems to be prevalent in government field offices.
Today is a great time to add value to your knowledge of GNU/Linux, and
"save the world" at the same time.
---
Ben B
-------------
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO,
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold,[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 03:51 PM EST |
There needs to be a constitutional amendment that requires the source code for
any government-run software to be available to the public.
Do I say this because I hate Microsoft?
No, Microsoft is irrelevant to this issue.
Do I say this because Open Source is better, cheaper, more flexible, and so on?
No, any cost or freedom advantages (or disadvantages) that Open Source would
provide to the government are irrelevant to the issue.
Here is the reason...
The source code for government-run software must be available to the public for
the same reason that we have freedom of information laws -- to protect our
freedom!
If we are to remain free, then every action, and every procedure carried out by
government must be open to public scrutiny.
It makes no difference if those government procedures are carried out in
software. The same rules apply.
We must be able to audit all government actions. As with the freedom of
information laws, we require the right to see any software that the government
is running, including a verification that the binaries match the source code.
If the public can't audit the software, then we have no way to find out whether
money is being diverted, contracts are being improperly awarded, votes are being
skewed, our personal information is being leaked to private interests, and so
on.
Except when required by national security, the government is not allowed to keep
secrets from the people. And codifying procedures into software must not become
a loophole around that rule.
What I would like to see happen is for some group, such as the EFF, to put in a
freedom of information request to see the source code for, say, the software
being used by the clerks in the tax department. Then, when the government says
it can't be done, because the software is proprietary, push the case to the
Supreme Court.
I am not exaggerating for effect. This really is a issue of basic freedom. And I
don't mean freedom in the software sense, per the FSF. I mean freedom in the
liberty sense, as protected by the constitution.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cananian on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 04:53 PM EST |
H. Bray wrote a pretty critical article about the Diebold case, earlier, based
on the first premise that the document publication was theft and that there were
no excuses for it. During the dot-com boom, though, he wrote enthusiastic
articles about the Red Hat IPO, though. So it's a mixed bag. I'm pretty sure
he *doesn't* use Linux, though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 05:46 PM EST |
Oy think of all the programmers in India who'll be in danger of losing their
jobs...this open source thing must be stopped! Wait what was I talking about?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: stevem on Tuesday, January 06 2004 @ 07:54 PM EST |
Ha! What an amusing comment for an Aussie:
"Overseas, one of Australia's six states has passed legislation mandating
the use of open-source code..."
Firstly, the bill was passed in the Australian Capitial Territory (ACT)
legislative assembly. 2ndly it does NOT mandate Open Source at ALL; rather asks
that the local govt. examine open source solutions.
Thirdly, the ACT is not a state. It's a territory. The Aussie states are
Queensland; New South Wales; Victoria; Tasmania; South Australia; and Western
Australia.
Northern Territory (NT) and ACT are not states. Tho I believe NT is attempting
to get statehood (again).
What _IS_ interesting about the ACT situation, is that most of the Federal
Govt., is based in the ACT. Changes in one will _tend_ to flow into the other.
So on the one hand, this is a bit of a non-event; on the other the potential
implications are HUGE.
But be aware that Govt. timeframes are positively glacial. Most Windows NT4
migrations I've seen are still struggling to move to Windows 2000 - let alone
Windows XP or beyond.
Open Source in it's various forms is alive and well in the Aussie Federal Govt.
Just don't hold your breath waiting to hear about it.
- SteveM
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
