U.S. Governments Advised to Use Open Source 176
An anonymous reader writes "LinuxDevices is reporting that non-profit public policy research group, Committee for Economic Development, has released a 72-page report that takes a look at open standards, open source software, and 'open innovation.' From the article: 'The report concludes that openness should be promoted as a matter of public policy, in order to foster innovation and economic growth in the U.S. and world economies.' The full text [PDF] of the report is also available for download from the CED site."
LinuxDevices' summary is a tad misleading... (Score:5, Informative)
From LinuxDevices' summary: And directly from the report (boldface mine): It's fortunate that LinuxDevices included a link to the PDF so we could read it in its entirity (plus, although the report is 72 pages long, only 44 of those pages are the actual report).
Re:LinuxDevices' summary is a tad misleading... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:LinuxDevices' summary is a tad misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not implying that the statements negate each other. I am implying that by incompletely quoting the report (leaving out the key phrase: 'certain critical functions of government'), LinuxDevices encourages the false assumption that the Council is recommending that interoperable technology be mandated for all facets of government, not merely for 'certain critical functions'. That is why I characterized LinuxDevices' summary as 'a tad misleading', rather than 'grossly misleading'.
Re:LinuxDevices' summary is a tad misleading... (Score:2)
Microsoft will be happy to $upply $oftware that i$ interoperable
Re:LinuxDevices' summary is a tad misleading... (Score:5, Insightful)
At least it's closer to correct than the Slashdot headline. Open standards, which the report encourages, is a far cry from open source, which the report specifically stays neutral on.
TW
Share With Other Countries (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:3, Informative)
Because the clueless people in control need a stack of official-looking paper full of things they don't understand in order to reassure themselves and others that some non-clueless people think it's a good idea.
Really, all these "studies" could be filled with nothing but Pink Floyd lyrics after the first few pages, and nobody would ever notice.
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:2)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:1)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:2)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it's because the guys in control of the purse string and those making the grand decisions are honest enough to say "I don't know about this, let's get an experts opinion. On the way maybe they can answer a few questions for us." That's my guess. It's a far better system than the airchair engineers here on Slashdot who think that they have some grand insight into the workings of the universe even tho they're normally just self-titled "geeks" who think that a 30 minute show on the Discovery Channel makes them qualified to make sweeping statements on any given topic instead of asking questions on what they think they know.
It reminds me of a recent story from my brother; He sent my 14 year old nephew out to start the car on a cold day to let it warm up as he got ready to go someplace. My nephew returned after starting the car and said that he now knows how to drive... It's a sad statement but there are a ton of people out there who think this way. While I'm not saying that someone's ideas should be discounted if they don't have a masters in some field of study at the same time we should be honest enough to admit that there are areas we know little about. Admitting to that shouldn't make the confessor a target of bad jokes, it should be a sign that they're willing to learn from those who know more.
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:2)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:2)
This needs to be balanced... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This needs to be balanced... (Score:2)
That's why I said (and I quote!) "While I'm not saying that someone's ideas should be discounted if they don't have a masters in some field of study at the same time we should be honest enough to admit that there are areas we know little about."
Things like, "Is it good for the people when the government mandates reliance on a corporation, and requires the people to purchase products from a specific co
Wonderful idea! (Score:2)
Now, let us contact all other countries and get them to start their own studies about this exact same topic!!
Re:Wonderful idea! (Score:1, Informative)
We are encourged to use Open Source where applicable, such as Linux for certain
Not all of that is required. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:2)
Re:Share With Other Countries (Score:2)
Commie Pinko's (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Commie Pinko's (Score:1)
Z.
Re:Commie Pinko's (Score:1)
Terrorism = teh new hawtness
Re:Commie Pinko's (Score:2)
I'd expect some of the "new right wingers" to oppose it rather than the old school Reps.
Re:neo-Cons vs. Reagan Cons (Score:2)
Old school capitalists were bothered by the influence the government would have on commerce. Maybe it's time to coin a new term for people bothered by the influence corporations have on governments. It's a far bigger threat to freedom in the free world than Communism ever was.
Even mentions Slashdot! (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not a good thing. (Score:2)
I hope that there's a glossary somewhere that explains what "Slashdot" is.
Re:That's not a good thing. (Score:2)
Slashdot is a popular website that features short summaries of technology-related news articles from a wide variety of other websites. Readers are provided with a link to the original website, should they wish to read the article in its entirety, and can also post their comments regarding the article on the Slashdot website. The editors of Slashdot are responsible for accepting or rejecting news articles, which are generally submitted by Slashdot readers.
Re:That's not a good thing. (Score:2)
Slashdot is a popular website that features short summaries of technology-related news articles from a wide variety of other websites. Readers are provided with a link to the original website, should they wish to read the article in its entirety, and can also post their comments regarding the article on the Slashdot website. The editors of Slashdot are responsible for accepting or rejecting news articles, which are generally submitted by Slashdot read
Devil's Advocate... (Score:3, Interesting)
"should be promoted as a matter of public policy, in order to foster innovation and economic growth in the U.S. and world economies."
Devil's advocate: I've found that as a general rule, people are motivated by money, thus motivated to invent when a paycheck is on the line. Plus, if a "no name" from a small economy invents something new and grand enough for everyone to want it, then by chargin for their product they would be causing their econmy to grow.
...just thinking out loud...
Re:Devil's Advocate... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Devil's Advocate... (Score:1)
Labor can be motivated by money. Invention cannot.
. .
Simply charging for something does not create wealth, it just moves money around. Money is just a bit of paper that represents something. If there is no something behind the money there is very little point in moving it.
There is very little something behind most software, thus most software expenditures are a drain on
Re:Devil's Advocate... (Score:2, Insightful)
See cancer research. Money motivates you to show up to collect the money. It can do nothing to motivate invention, or even the inventive spirit. You either have it or you don't. If you have it, you will pay to be allowed to invent. If you do not have it you can spend all the time you want at your job, but history will almost certainly record your life as having been wasted on passing busy time to collect a wage.
I invent on both the technology and art sides of the
Re:Devil's Advocate... (Score:2)
Air America needs them to listen to their radios instead of reading
Shame on you.
Outweigh lobbists/funding? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that US legislators are often unduly influenced [bought] by campaign contributions. This will tip the scale. I give you the Sunny Bono Copyright Extention Act of 1996 as evidence.
Re:Outweigh lobbists/funding? (Score:3, Insightful)
I think ALL government science should be done under some form of BSD license.
Re:Outweigh lobbists/funding? (Score:2)
Look no further than the journal industry. (Score:2)
The U.S. government is the biggest single supporter of medical research (that I know of) in the world, I'd sure like to be able to see the results of my money.
If you wan
My favorite part (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:My favorite part (Score:2)
Open Source (Score:1)
Re:Open Source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open Source (Score:1)
Re:Open Source (Score:2, Funny)
Exactly. There are a lot of brainwashed free software people out there that just don't seem to understand that what's good for Microsoft is what is good for America. America isn't into manufacturing goods as much as it used to so it needs to rely on new and innovative companies like Microsoft to market technology, services, and intellectual property to remain prosper
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Public money that is currently going to MS (and other commercial licenses) COULD go to:
as just a few examples. Really, do you actually PAY taxes?
Oh, please (Score:2)
You are majoring in the minors. I chose to buy those licenses because I feel more productive in Windows than in MacOS, and because quite frankly at the purchase of Win95 Linux wasn't mature enough, and at the purchase of WinXP I wanted to play games. I made the choice. I want Windows. A lot of us do. Microsoft actually does a lot of cool stuff, its too bad that the
Re:Oh, please (Score:2)
If the government decides to use Format X, not only do all of the government's systems have to be upgraded to use this format, but everyone who wants to interact with the government needs to toe the line as well. That was the problem in Massachusetts: by using Microsoft Word, they were effectively telling citizens
Re:Oh, please (Score:2)
So everyone using Linux 2.2.6 and OpenOffice 2 is better than WindowsXP and OpenOffice? I fail to see the difference. Either way you have a staunch majority and lack the divertiy you seek.
If the government decides to use Format X, not only do all of the government's systems have to be upgraded to use this format, but everyone who wants to interact with the government needs to toe the line as well.
Ye
Re:Oh, please (Score:2)
Re:Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. I can see consumerist education has really taken root. Believe it or not, it is not your public duty to buy more stuff.
Suppose the government spent all of its money paying people to dig holes and fill them back in. It's spending, and its certainly spending within this country, but it clearly isn't good for the economy. Why do you think that is?
Spending doesn't boost an economy. Useful production does. Spending only has a positive effect on the economy to the extend that it promotes useful production. For more information on this, look up Opportunity Costs. Also, if you are concerned about spending money on American goods as opposed to others, may I suggest that you read up on the Ricardian theory of International Trade.
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
I disagree. I believe ideology drives economy. Currently, the American ideology is that we need to be world police. Don't believe me? Look at the budget: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/06feb20061 000/www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/budget/tab les.pdf [akamaitech.net]
~ 500 billion dollars to DOD and Homeland security The next biggest expenditure is Social Security, which _we already paid for out of our own pocket_
Note the deficit spending at the bott
Re:Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
The bottom line is that spending the money on something else instead of proprietary software licenses makes the economy more efficient, and is therefore a good thing.
Oh shit... something is free? FUCK THAT! (Score:4, Insightful)
you'd be suprised... (Score:2)
I think it was on this month's edition of Fast Company, bottled air is poised to be a multi-billion dollar industry next year. Same idiots who buy bottled water. Think about it, if people are willing to believe that bottled water is better than free water, and possibly that bottled air is better than free air, don't you maybe, possibly think those same people might just maybe, possibly extend those same beliefs to their choice of OS?
Re:you'd be suprised... (Score:2)
Re:Oh shit... something is free? FUCK THAT! (Score:2)
Tell that to This Guy [lookatmebeingserious.com]
Re:Open Source (Score:1)
don't worry, you don't have to decide now, just get back to me as soon as you're ready.
howie
Free != Free (Score:2)
Open Source means that you can take a look at the source code. Not that you needn't pay for using it. Or that you may use it however you want. BIG difference.
Of course you can make money with OS software. If someone wants to use it, in whole or part, he has to pay royalties (depending on the license). Sure, some companies will try to get away with ripping it, but as it's been seen in the past, such attempts rarely remain secret. And the bigger the company (and the m
Economics should be a required class in highschool (Score:1)
NOT TRUE! In order to boost an economy, people need to PRODUCE things.
For most market transactions, it happens that if someone is going to produce things someone has to be willing to buy them, which is where your confusion comes from. However, if someone makes useful stuff and gives it away for free, that is as beneficial for the economy as if someone produces the same amount of stuff
Open Standards != Open Source (Score:2)
Re:Open Source (Score:1)
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Keep talking like that and the IRS is going to sue you for patent infringement.
Re:Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see how using open source would help the economy. In order to boost an economy, people need to buy things, and last time I checked, free open source software was *free*. Free means it doesn't cost money, and if it doesn't cost money, no one is buying it. If enough people switch to free software, the economy will be hurt rather than helped.
This is why Econ-101 is mandatory for most 4 year degrees. Most software is tools. That is to say, most is infrastructure cost for a business or individual. There are a few exceptions, like games where it is an end product. People, companies, and organizations buy tools to accomplish other tasks. Take automobiles, for example. Businesses and individuals use them to get from place to place and to transport things. They are tools. Suppose all of a sudden some buddhist monk has a revelation. Energy and matter exist only in the mind so using this simple technique you can instantly transport yourself and everything you are carrying anywhere you want. *Poof* the world is a very different place. Free transportation takes the world by storm. All the auto companies that don't sell recreational vehicles go under. What a huge loss to the economy right? All those billions aren't being spent building cars and selling cars and buying cars. Hundreds of thousands of auto workers, salesmen, and managers need to find new jobs. Other industries take a huge hit as well, like insurance, gas, and steel. It's a disaster.
But wait, lets think about this just a little bit more. Most of the people in the US still have jobs and now they all have eliminated a huge expense from their budget. They don't have to buy a car, insurance, or gas. What do all these people do with the money? Well, they certainly vacation a lot more, since travel is now so cheap. They buy bigger houses. They buy more clothes. They invest and they spend. And all those companies that used to buy trucks for freight? Now they have fewer expenses. They can lower their prices or invest in R&D or expansion.
There are a whole lot of things wrong with my previous example. Learning how to teleport using our minds would be much, much more disruptive than widespread adoption of free software. The point I hope it illustrates is that making tools more efficiently (the shared cost of open source with little or no overhead is much less than the cost of buying closed source software that does the same. It is like the ultimate price cut. Pay only for what you need that no one else has already paid for. Everyone saves a big expense, an expense that exists solely due to an inefficient production and distribution system. It does not take money out of the economy, it merely shifts that money around to production of end-user products rather than intermediate tools.
In any case it is a mistake to believe open source software is free. If you get a new car for helping someone build a house is the car free? It cost no money. Open source software is similar. You pay by agreeing to the terms of the license. Your payment for downloading a copy of OpenOffice is that you agree if you make any changes to the code and distribute that code, you let everyone else who agrees to the license have it too. Some would call this very cheap. Others would disagree, but I don't think it is possible to say it is free as in beer.
What it is is very, very efficient. Since it costs basically nothing to make a copy, you pay only for changes you want made and you pay that cost for everyone after you. Looking back at the auto industry, a man came up with a way to build cars faster and cheaper. His name was Ford and he applied the assembly line to the auto industry. Now fewer people could make more cars, faster, with less training. It did not ruin the economy it made a huge positive impact. Similarly, the availability to everyone of code and binaries to accomplish most any task will not ruin the computer industry, rather it will make it more efficient and benefit all.
Given the efficiency of this method, it is almost certai
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
In fact, I do disagree. The free as in beer model is someone gives you a beer, you consume the beer. It has not cost you anything. Now let us go backwards to what comes before the previously quoted sentence:
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. If someone gives me a beer, it is mine to do with what I will. I can drink it and all is good. Open source licenses, however, do not quite fit with that analogy. First, the user is making a copy. They go out and get the software from somewhere, usually it is downloaded. This is like someone setting up a refrigerator with a sign on it that says if you agree to this license which is posted, you may take a free beer. If you don't agree to the license, it is ill
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Well said; also my two cents: (Score:3, Interesting)
One thing I'd like to hammer home is the redundancy argument: with closed-source software, everyone pays for the same thing, OVER AND OVER again. I buy Windows, you buy Windows. We both got the exact same thing. With free software, you don't pay for the copy of the software, you pay to make that software better for you. It's only "free" (as in beer) if it does exactly what you want it to do out of the box, if it doe
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Pretty common viewpoint though, isn't it? If it weren't, people in the U.S. would have -- oh, let's just speculate wildly -- something like national health care because healthier people can be more productive to the economy. Instead, it's more common to think that preventive health isn't sexy. The big money is in crisis care and long term care products for heart disease and diabetes, for examp
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Buying is only a portion of what is needed to have a better economy, don't forget selling. If free software makes it easier for people to produce other things and
Re:Open Source (Score:2)
Might it not be more
Report format (Score:1)
Re:Report format (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Report format (Score:3, Informative)
Yes and no. Yes, it uses PDF for which there are open standards (ISO 15930 and ISO 19005 to name only a couple). No, that's not much like RTF, for which there is not (TTBOMK) an open standard. After Microsoft releases a new version of Word, they (at least usually) publish a specification of the format of RTF files it'll produce -- but that's not much like an open standard process where other interested parties
How far will it go... (Score:1)
full circle (jerk) (Score:5, Informative)
What I find curious, amazing, confounding is this whole thing seems to be full circle for what I remember the government doing a LONG time ago! And, it is and was one of the fundamental original underpinnings of some of the Microsoft shenanigans in the early 1990s.
I worked on some government contracts circa 1985, and I remember a movement in the government contracting to require new contracts for computer services to be POSIX compliant. I also remember thinking how cool of an approach that was, especially considering it was a government initiative. Anyway, lots of fun programming, lots of fun (and hard) work and all on a Unix (SunOS) platform... yeah, it was even fun though we were using SunView (look it up).
Enter Microsoft, late 1980s, and 1990 on. They sorely wanted to get into the big government contract business, and as one of their boasts for their new and improved OS (NT), they talked loud and long about NT being a POSIX OS (not an OS with a POSIX subsystem, a POSIX OS). Heck they even convinced me to come work for them for a while, until in a closed door presentation, the project manager for the POSIX subsystem prefaced her notes by saying (and I'm paraphrasing, but it's close to a quote), "Before we start, I just want to point out that we don't care about this subsystem, we don't intend to use it, and we don't intend to support it. It's just a check-box for government contracts."
And, now the government is back to recommending Open Source and "open innovation". I only wonder if this has any impact on Microsoft this time. It didn't before, I'm guessing it won't now. Sigh.
Nice unbiased report... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nice unbiased report... (Score:2)
Not if the report said the same thing.
And the Way It Plays in Washington (Score:2)
-Everyone can use word documents.
-There is a standard in place and we manage it very well thank you.
-Enforcing a single standard denies the market the ability to choose the better standard.
Today's Lesson: What is painfully obvious to the average
Re:And the Way It Plays in Washington (Score:2)
How about tax dollars? (Score:2, Insightful)
In determining how the government should run itself, fairness is lower on the list. For me at least.
Unintended consequences (Score:3, Interesting)
So, what sort of unintended consequences would a mandate to use OSS/standards-based software bring about? Well, armed with the sourcecode, it is easy to envision government IT people customizing the application in order to "better integrate with their work procedures" or "enhance the security". Play this out over 10 years and what you wind up with is chaos, with the very thing you were hoping to achieve (interoperability) lost in a myriad of incompatible, "enhanced" applications.
"Embrace and extend" is human nature, it is not just a Microsoft failing.
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:2)
Re:Unintended consequences (Score:2)
Action through inaction. (Score:2)
This is true, and I agree with you heartily on not doing things just for the sake of "doing something." However I think it's important to point out that there are situations, and I think this is one of them, where if you don't take some sort of action you allow something else to occur by default.
In other words, there already IS a policy on electronic documents, it's
How many? (Score:2)
Open Source / Open Formats (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Source / Open Formats (Score:2)
You may feel that way, but there are some substantial differences.
Open Source can't really "die" as long as someone has a copy of the source. It can only be "mostly dead". Someone who has the source can always modify it to work elsewhere. At very least the source can be used to understand clearly what the file format is so they can retrieve the data.
A closed source application can die because it the company decides to stop produ
It's preferred in DoD to do this... (Score:2)
MS hasn't exactly been forthcoming with opening up their Office software documents' standards. And if you couple that fact to the fact that MS Office doesn't run well on anything except MS Windows or a Mac, you get the problem that we have today.
I am typing this from a machine with Win XP on it, and Office 2003.
I used to work for a private
Re:ummmm (Score:1)
Re:ummmm (Score:1, Informative)
I have a big clue stick if you want to beat yourself on the head with it. Is this a knee-jerk reaction you're having? I don't know where to begin to comment on such a lack of knowlege on this subject... sigh. But lets just say the report is more about open standards and interoperability than about using F/OSS applications and operating systems.
Re:ummmm (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone wants to find holes, they will. Remember Windows? You know, that system from that tiny company in Redmond. It doesn't really have a rep for being open and disclosed (I heard they even have lost some minor trial in an unimportant part of the world because they couldn't provide enough docs to at least make it possible to create programs sensibly for their system). And still vulnerabilities are found and exploited.
Would more security holes be found if the source was open?
Re:72 Pages??? (Score:3, Informative)
From LinuxDevices.com: The report was released by the Committee for Economic Development (CED), a non-profit, non-partisan public policy research organization comprised of about 200 senior corporate executives and university leaders.
This isn't government waste -- this is a public group trying to advise the government. Of course, being non-partisan, the Demopublicans and Republicrats in Congress won't pay attention.
Re:72 Pages??? (Score:2)
Having worked for one for several years (and having been in contact with others), I can tell you that most of them get their funding through grants which generally originate from the government (and occasionally from trusts set up by individuals or corporations).
Re:"US Governments"? (Score:2)
Re:"US Governments"? (Score:2)
50 State Governments, + a handful of US Territory Govs
more county and municipal governments than I care to count
In short, there's a lot of them.
That's an unrelated issue. (Score:2)
How the authors or the responsible agency feels about globalization, outsourcing, or abortion shouldn't affect what you think of this one report. They could be Nazis--literal