Open Source in Government 123
A reader writes: "There is a feature running on NF about a conference this October. More information can be found on the conference website." It's worth pointing that despite the fact that the conference is two days long, the organizers have asked for material submissions to be included in the conference handbook. So, if you've got some materials/thoughts, start polishing them up.
How About Open-Source-Government? (Score:1, Troll)
Re:How About Open-Source-Government? (Score:1)
In theory yes, but how would YOU like to write custom drivers for all those new House and Senate members every couple years? I mean, I don't even want to THINK what kind of kernel hacking you'd have to do to make Gary Condit run properly...
Re:How About Open-Source-Government? (Score:3, Funny)
Unfortunately the process is owned by root and something comes along and kills it.
KNOWN ISSUE: You might have to interrogate Condit multiple times before he acknowledges that he has a connection to this device.
Re:How About Open-Source-Government? (Score:2, Funny)
Fortunatly, he's already been rm -r 'ed.
Not enough time (Score:1)
Re:AC for a reason? (Score:1)
The fact is though, that there are so many projects on Sourceforge, that it would be quite simple to find a project to contribute to.
How else would a newbie easily find OS projects, or for that matter, any type of project.
Sites like Sourceforge enable people to easily find projects they like the sound of, without too much trouble.
My 0.02
Tim
Sha, I wish (Score:2, Troll)
These were his claims (before you mod me down, remember that I disagree with his assessment, I'm just the messenger here)
So anyway, I'm glad the gov't is taking a second look. Hopefully Linux has improved since then.
Generic FUD in fact (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope that with IBM/HPaq/Dell and so on entering the field this will slowly change
Re:Generic FUD in fact (Score:2)
Re:Generic FUD in fact (Score:1)
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:1, Troll)
He said they'd found massive security issues with Linux
Okay, fine. But what operating system hasn't had massive security issues? It's the nature of the beast. If you've been paying attention to Slashdot [slashdot.com] lately, you'll know that even the ultra-secure OpenBSD has its share of security holes.
He said the reliability wasn't quite high enough for those mission critical items we performed
Well, given that this was in 1998, he may have had a point. But Linux has improved quite a bit since then. 2.2 was a very stable and reliable kernel, and since the 2.5 branch, I've been using the latest kernel on all of my high demand enterprise servers.
He said their was nobody to call when it broke
Yeah, except for Red Hat, SuSe, Caldera, Debian... Next!
He said that the haphazardly "open" way it had been developed practically guaranteed the existence of bugs
Yes, but they are shallow bugs. Read RMS's article, the Cathedral in the Bizarre, located here [gnu.org] for more details.
He also said that the licensing issues prevented our lab from putting the results of our experiments in the public domain
Hahahahahahaahhaha. That's a good one. Maybe you haven't heard about the GPL, but under Linux's license you actually are required to release your experiments to the public. Try doing that in Windows!
I hope you are now educated and will not go believing any more FUD of this sort.
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:4, Informative)
This was '98. RedHat had huge security problems back then (installing most services by default and open etc).
2.2 was a very stable and reliable kernel, and since the 2.5 branch, I've been using the latest kernel on all of my high demand enterprise servers.
Linux still have problems in the highend with the VM issues. Which is why they're changing the VM again for 2.6 (or whatever).
Yes, but they are shallow bugs. Read RMS's article, the Cathedral in the Bizarre, located here [gnu.org] for more details.
Bugs are bugs. And I don't think the recent bugs in openssh, openssl, and apache were shallow.
Hahahahahahaahhaha. That's a good one. Maybe you haven't heard about the GPL, but under Linux's license you actually are required to release your experiments to the public. Try doing that in Windows!
No, you're not. Nowhere in the GPL does it says you have to release your experiments to the public. Please reread the GPL. Only when you distribute you're changes to the software, do you have to rerelease the changes to GPL. Also, GPL doesn't allow you to put your derivative works in the public domain. There are no problems putting derivative works (works linked against libraries in Windows) in the public domain.
And finally,
Wow, now that strikes me as a lot of FUD. Do you work for Microsoft?
Maybe you need to get off your high horse and reread his comment again? He said those comments were not his, but rather his auditor's comments.
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:1)
This is actually something that bothers me because government works must be released into the public domain. It would appear that the GPL blocks release of government modified software.
GPL: you don't have to use it on Linux (Score:2)
What does this mean? It means you can write public software to your heart's content with the caveat that you must spend a little effort investigating what libraries your code uses.... which is something you do as a course of your job anyways.
Examples of libraries that are LGPL:
glibc, GNOME libraries, wine, etc.. etc.. etc..
On another note, I wonder why my tax dollars go to pay for software which, because it is in the public domain, can be reused in a commercial application and cause me to have to pay for it again.
The GPL serves the very useful public function of ensuring that publically available IP cannot be co-opted by an entity and monopolized.
Re:GPL: you don't have to use it on Linux (Score:1)
The GPL serves the very useful public function of ensuring that publically available IP cannot be co-opted by an entity and monopolized.
Actually, that is one of the benefits of a commons. For example highways as a commons can accomodate commercial and non-comercial traffic. Excluding commercial traffic seriously undermines the quality of the commons. In fact, the success of http and html is largely due to its entry into the public enabling commercial and non-commercial use.
I find a frustrating inconsistancy in the claim that ip should not apply to electronic works because they are not resources that can be diminished but public doman is not sufficient from preventing a work from being monopolized. If it is in the public domain, then it can't be monopolized, because everyone has the right to make a copy.
For example, there about a dozen editions of Moby Dick out there. And of course the GPL like the public domain availability of Moby Dick does not prohibit anyone from charging you for a copy. However it does open the door for non-commercial distribution.
Re:GPL: you don't have to use it on Linux (Score:2)
I did not state that IP should not apply to electronic works. In fact, the GPL uses the notion of IP (copyright) as the basis for the distribution conditions that apply to software licensed under it.
You are essentially arguing that since there are no restrictions on Public Domain, that therefore software under this license cannot be co-opted. In my opinion, this would be true except for the way patenting currently works in the US.
Since we're talking about standards, lets take the example of the MD5 algorithm. There is a company that currently owns a patent on the use of MD5 checksums to check whether [slashdot.org] a webpage has changed.
Here we have a perfect example of something that is an open and widely used standard being co-opted by a company through a patent that essentially describes a process already widely used, but for a specific case. Now, if this patent is allowed to stand, an application of the standard I previously was allowed to make under the public domain standard now will be illegal without paying a license. What was free to me no longer is because it was monopolized by means of a patent.
How would the GPL protect against this? Quite simply because if the company distributed any manner of software based on the technology, I would automatically receive the code and a license to modify and re-use it as I wished. They would still own the patent, but would implicitly give me a license to use it by distributing the GPLed software.
Public domain IP can be co-opted... and this, in my mind, means it is no longer suitable as a mechanism for ensuring the principle it exists to ensure: freely useable and available technology.
Re:GPL: you don't have to use it on Linux (Score:1)
But if the IP is covered by patent, then it really cannot be considered public domain. Furthermore, md5 does not appear to be in the public domain to begin with. [umbc.edu] It is copyright 1991 RSA data security and released under a liberal license. (Which raises some interesting questions about the patent case. Since RSA owns the code, and Pumatech claims a patent on the use of the code, does the patent interfere with a copyright holder's rights?) You seem to be suffering from the confusion that public domain equals widely published.
In fact there is a serious problem with redefining copyright to permit the government to apply the GPL to their works. The GPL depends on the creator of the software holding the copyright to the software. I suspect that the GPL also depends on the continued goodwill that the programmer will not decide at some point in the future to pack of all the marbles, go home, and stop publishing a given software package under the GPL in order to collect royalties. This is one advantage that public domain has over copyleft and even liberal licenses. Once something is in the public domain it can never be withdrawn from the public domain. There is minimal risk that the terms under which the work is distributed will change in the future.
I'm not comfortable with the idea of granting the government the ability to "own" critical information such as census data, geographic maps, and the congressional record. The arbitrary nature of national security restrictions on governmental data is tricky enough. I personally don't want to live in a nation in which newspapers could be forced to pay a royalty on court records if Congress felt that it was a good way to raise revenue. Granted the public domain nature of this data means that the local newspaper can charge fifty cents plus exposure to advertising for printing the court record. On the other hand, it also gives me the right to choose one to the courthouse and demand it for myself.
Certainly the GPL is a good tool for individuals and projects. However it depends on individual property rights that were granted to citizens and denied to the government for some pretty strong reasons.
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:2)
Don't be ridiculous. No one would use Linux (myself included) if its license required my data to be released under the terms of the GPL. That's silly. Linux and its software has no such requirement.
Jason.
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:1)
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:1)
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:3, Interesting)
Security issues: Yup. Fixed alot, but they still exist. They're still less than most others though.
Reliability: Yup. This is probably due to hardware rather than anything else as Solaris on Sun was significantly more solid 4 years ago. The gap has closed greatly since, but is probably still not (usually) closed yet.
Support: Most developers are not available to call in case of breakage. The hardware vendors don't support it, people are SOL. IBM fixed that for big iron, others try to support it for smaller machines, but it's not there yet.
Open source = bugs: Yup. Sorry, prerelease QA isn't exactly OSS's strong point. OSS guarantees the bugs will be found, and closed more quickly though.
Licensing issues: Maybe. This is possibly true in certain corner cases.
The thing that will help the government the most is actual deployment and acceptance of Linux. If they can be shown that these things are fixed or irrelevant, they'll be more inclined to look.
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:2)
Security issues: Yup. Fixed alot, but they still exist. They're still less than most others though.
Open source = bugs: Yup. Sorry, prerelease QA isn't exactly OSS's strong point. OSS guarantees the bugs will be found, and closed more quickly though.
No ch!t. I spotted the news of the OpenSSL overflows on slashdot literally minutes after they were posted
Support: Most developers are not available to call in case of breakage. The hardware vendors don't support it, people are SOL. IBM fixed that for big iron, others try to support it for smaller machines, but it's not there yet.
'scuse me, but the fix was available before CERT and BugTraq knew a problem existed
well, you did something about it, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
Auditors don't run projects, you do. I work for a state governmemt. And a lot of our projectes are federally funded of course. But that doesn't mean the feds get to run the show. Open source is clearly in the public interest. And my projects are better for it. And the feds (my feds I guess) approve.
This type of situation demonstrates the lack of communication between business planning and IT. When you let your exec runs your IT decisions -- disaster! (Like the IBM commercial -- is this implementable? No.) Equally disasterous, when IT makes all the tech decisions without involving the execs. (You built what? Cool. But we don't sell those widgets anymore. You just wasted the last six months on something we phased out four months ago.) Hello. Time for a business model that lets your IT and your Business Planning talk about some fundamentals.
FUD runs both ways my friends. If you don't step up and correct some of it, the problem just gets worse.
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to hear that sort of FUD all of the time. Mostly from people who had spent a great deal of time and money getting certified in some other vendor's software. Linux and Free Software are dangerous to these people because they seriously impact the value of these people's skills. If more and more businesses and organizations start using Free Software, then there will be less demand for their particular skillset.
Many of the points that the GAO guy brought up are simply not true, and all of them should be taken with a huge grain of salt. There haven't been any "massive security" issues with Linux (although the same can't be said for some other PC based server operating systems written in Redmond), and there haven't been any major reliability problems either. In fact, anecdotal evidence shows that Linux is more secure and more reliable than its commercial competitors. As for commercial support, I have been using Linux since 1994, and there has always been someone you could call for support (granted, they were probably fairly small). Nowadays you can contract support from IBM or HP, which should be support enough for just about anyone. And if he thinks that Free Software is "haphazard" he should see what passes for development in some closed source commercial companies. Borland's Interbase apparently has had a backdoor password for years that wasn't found until the source was opened, and some versions of Excell shipped with a full blown flight simulator included. You can put anything in a commercial software product without anyone being the wiser. The last point is especially weak. The GPL, arguably the most restrictive Free Software license, doesn't even attempt to control how you use the software. You don't have to pay one bit of attention to the GPL unless you distribute software based on GPLed source. Most commercial software EULA's on the other hand have all sorts of end user stipulations. In other words there are no "licensing issues" and you certainly wouldn't have to put your lab results into the public domain.
This particular brand of FUD hasn't worked particularly well against Linux because so many folks have used Linux successfully. Linux's low price also makes it easy to run your own tests. Linux has simply become too popular to ignore these days. There are simply too many happy Linux users to overlook the chance to get good software at a very low price.
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:2)
This appears to be quite common with anti-Linux FUD. Critisisms actually more applicable to some other system...
As for commercial support, I have been using Linux since 1994, and there has always been someone you could call for support (granted, they were probably fairly small).
"Support" has ended up meaning both "pass the buck" and "get the thing fixed". Also with proprietary software contacting support can wind up as "try and you sell the latest version".
The last point is especially weak. The GPL, arguably the most restrictive Free Software license, doesn't even attempt to control how you use the software.
Nor does it restrict what you can do with the output of GPL software. Write a program with GCC and it's yours to do with what you like.
Re:Sha, I wish (Score:1)
C'mon, people, get a memory. Quit modding up and replying to this kind of stuff. See the red dot, maybe admire it for a while, and then move along to the next one without modding it up or replying to it. (Topical replies, I mean. Replying to it editorially to critique the technique, is fine.)
(*) I guess comments like that just encourage this sort of thing, but then, I'm not really against good trolling. I'm just against people, who should know better, falling for it.
Re:Sha, I wish - OK here. (Score:1)
If you flew into any of the NY-NJ airports since 1999, FAA Air traffic managers controling your flight were looking at the weather on Debian Linux Dell PC's (PPro 200's!). The NWS Aviation Digital Data Service web site, where pilots go to get their weather graphics before they fly, is all Linux.
I've got two award plaques on my wall from the FAA in thanks for those deployments so I'd say that at at least some govt workers have a clue. Our organisation is also deploying Linux clusters for the Army, and they are being used daily for operations in the US and Middle East. There are all types of people in Government. Some actually do good work.
Before the awards I was asked to keep our linux deployments quiet, because of all the perception problems mentioned. The FUD was false. Working, reliable systems, at minimal cost spoke for themselves.
I used to privately evangelize about Linux, but now I consider my ability to deploy complex and reliable Linux based systems a competitive advantage.
Re:Sha, I wish - OK here. (Score:2)
Yes, it is one thing to evangelize Linux when no one has heard of it, but now you almost hope that your competitors use something else.
Worry (Score:4, Insightful)
How long after Sadam Husain launches a major investment in OSS will it be before the US Govt. bans all its citizens form partisipating.
Re:Worry (Score:1)
How long after Saddam Hussein launches a major investments in weapons will it be before the US government bans all weapons?
Re:Worry (Score:2)
OOS geeeks are terrorists
i had a thought once... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:i had a thought once... (Score:1)
Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:4, Troll)
1. If you want to use an opensource product, where do you learn about it? I know about oracle and mysql, but who do I goto for mysql paid support?
2. What about total solutions, other than RedHat or VA Software, are there other vedors? Or do I just goto IBM and Say "Linux"?
3. Are any opensource vendors bidding on government contracts?
4. Do the opensource vendors support 24/7 priority support? What about public safety? (fire/police/ambulance/etc.)
I deal with public safety, and they want a live person, with escalation if something is service impacting. They want service level agreements.
If I contact a large vendor, they have all those answers, they even seek my business. I have not seen much opensource support or opensource products besides apache and support utiltiies. I have not *seen* many adverts, people offering demos, people offering to fill a niche market, where are the opensource companies people need to turn too?
Re:Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:3, Informative)
There's plenty of support for Linux solutions, but just like anything else, you have to do some shopping and research.
The one thing you'll notice quickly about Linux is that once you're up and running, your _need_ for all that "service" you're used to with MS product dwindles to a trickle. It's one of the benefits of a really robust environment. There are a couple of links to TCO articles and Linux on the Linux Today site which you really should read if you're serious about considering Linux.
Concerning opensourse developers bidding on government-generated contracts, I don't know.
Hope this helps,
Re:Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:2)
But Applications, we use many applications for monitoring, backups, web, database. Much of our utilties are already opensource, and our Sys-Admins know how to support them.
I want to know about Applications and the companies that support them. Linux isnt the only opensource product. (-;
Re:Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:2)
Actually IBM will happily support your Sun servers.
Re:Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:1)
offer paid support. PostgreSQL is much better for
OLAP solutions. MySQL is very fast but I really don't like
its design - no transactions, etc...
2. You can go to mandrake-linux.com for some other solutions...
3. Probably RedHat. I don't know for sure.
4. Probably you can get Red Hat support 24/7
For business cases in Mandrake [mandrakebizcases.com]
you may click here...
Re:Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:1)
You can fall on two cases : few ppl use the software you want info about, or there are many. In the first case, you surely can ask directly the developer, he'll surely have time to answer you. In the second case, there is always a community behind the sofwtware where you can ask all your questions. Anyway, if you have a few coding skills, you still can check the sourcecode
4. Do the opensource vendors support 24/7 priority support? What about public safety? (fire/police/ambulance/etc.)
Most programs used by (fire/police/ambulance/etc.) are SPECIALIZED, that means that won't find that at your local shop
Re:Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:2)
One possible future nightmare here is COTS. (Commercial Off The Shelf). Which is practice means building a bespoke system on top of proprietary software. Build one from scratch or using open source and it will always be supportable. Use proprietary software as the basis and you could be held to ransom by a software company or left with a system which is impossible to support.
Re:Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:3, Informative)
Too easy. You go to Mysql Services [mysql.com].
Re:Where are the support opensource vendors? (Score:3, Informative)
Let's see:
For the type of service you want for a system with Linux machines, I think IBM probably is the only way to go at this point.
UK Government (Score:1)
What do they think about the UK's primary services gateway being entirely a M$ shindig, especially with reports that only IE is allowed as the client browser.
With all the M$ help, and Bill Gates' trips to the UK, we'll need to start aquiring as much custard pies as possible. We know Bill loves them, especially the French varieties.
Re:UK Government (Score:1)
The UK Gov does seem to be looking again at Open Source. No doubt this will lead to frantic meetings between Bill and
Tony!
Re:UK Government (Score:1)
Please notice that while the "goverment" may run on Microsoft the MOD [www.mod.uk] is much more intelligent- their web site runs Linux/Apache. Guess who's more concerned about security?
Justin
Ho-Hum (Score:4, Interesting)
Ok, Linux, despite what M$ may claim, has a place in today's post-pets.com/IPO/stupid-investing economy. As such, it's not as visible anymore. Think of it this way: when cell phones first came out, you knew who had one. They were different, elitist. Now, hilljacks from BFE Arkansas have cell phones, and no one notices. Once a Product becomes a standard part of everyday life, it just blends into the background.
This conference wants to 'Raise Awareness' and such and such. I think that, for the most part, people are aware of Open-Source. There are few markets, such as the lucrative US gov't market, that have yet to fully embrace it, but that's only a matter of time.
As of today, there are quite a few open-source companies, who unfortunately compete against each other, more often than not. This, IMHO, is the only reason that OSS is not as widely used as of yet. Yes, blame M$. But, that's just marketing. Marketing does wonders, but it's not everything. What is needed to overtake their monopolistic standing is another strong (not as big perhaps, but strong), company, with a very stable business behind it.
When i first heard of United Linux, my thought was, "Finally." But, no, it's simply a loose conglomerate of some lesser distros. What is needed to finally grab hold of these markets that seem so out of reach, is a single entity. If I'm a businessman, and wish to use Linux, I ask, ok, show me linux. What happens? I'm asked, "What do you want? Suse, Lindows, Mandrake, Debian, United, RedHat, ect.?" This does not work. If a businessman were instead told, "Here is Gerf Linux, the best supported and used Linux distro out there. It's the de facto Linux for all users. And, it's parent company, Gerf Inc. is making money, and will be around to support it too." THAT my friends, is what would finally make Linux, or any software in general, look more appealing to a company/government/user/organization. So, who can do that, and how? Sadly, no one. Unless standards were set for every miniscule detail, this system is not going to prosper in the way we wish it to.
Re:Ho-Hum (Score:1)
I would just point them in the FreeBsd Direction. It is one single entity, and joe business user doesn't really give a shit whether it's "free" or not.
Three Letters: I * B * M (Score:2)
I've got to imagine that other governments, which are becoming more and more computer dependant don't like the idea of being dependant on a US company for their systems. Thus the murmer from other countries about using OpenSource software. Developers in their own countries can develop the software, see the source, et. al. Maybe we'd still have that with IBM Linux, but the question you should be asking is what's to stop the US Government form asking Microsoft to stop producing a Aribic language version of their software? Could they do the same with IBM linux?
Re:Ho-Hum (Score:1)
Re:Ho-Hum (Score:1)
ugh, now i must explain myself
first of all, i'm an electrical engineer. i simply stated the situation as i see it from a business point of view. i hate business, and its ethics. it's evil. i love open source. it's the funnest way to do things.
"I would just point them in the FreeBsd Direction"
Then do so! But, it's not an easily recognizable solution, without a well-known name (in idiotland, where business people dwell). very good point though, you may have caught me unawares..
"Three Letters: I * B * M"
IBM does the whole package, not just software. i like IBM, but they're not 'the' company like they used to be. Also, have you seen the IBM commercials that say "servers running Linux"? note, they don't say "running Redhat" or some other distro. Linux has a name out there, and they use the name that people know. i'm not sure what they use though, you can easily correct me on this
"I've got to imagine that other governments, which are becoming more and more computer dependant don't like the idea of being dependant on a US company for their systems. Thus the murmer from other countries about using OpenSource software."
That's also why they're making their own Global Positioning System, European style. National Security. But, i don't think that many corporations, individuals, or organizations, are going to go to a open source standard for that reason. Although i'm very glad to see them using OSS, simply for the fact that they then encourage development of it.
"Don't you people get it? GNU/Linux isn't about big business and making money and consolidation and standards. It's about a bunch of hackers working together on something because it's fun, and because Free software is a Good Thing. If what we make happens to be better than the proprietary software that's out there, great. If not, who cares? It's a hobby. With all the hype around Open Source, people tend to forget the original aim of the movement: To write a Free operating system. If you want to turn it into a commercially viable Windows clone, good for you. If you want governments to adopt it, more power to you. Just don't attribute your goals to the rest of the Free Software movement."
True, very true. it's also the reason why a lotta the original hackers, who are anarchists at heart (hellz yah), don't do as much for OSS development anymore. the aim is to write a free OS? well, if this 'movement' would work on the same project, under the same name, it would gain more recognition. but that's not the point, i am very aware. if it's crappier than proprietary stuff? then few will know of the sub-par OS and it will fall into the unknown(BeOS... though it's being re-developed for the fun of it).
""It conforms very closely to the Linux Standards Base. We can currently purchase support for it from many of the top IT services companies. Because Linux can't be decommoditized, bought out, or otherwise stifled by any proprietary software vendors it will continue as a top tier enterprise platform for decades to come. Because of it's longevity companies will continue to support it for decades to come."
yes, Linux is good like that. I said that a single, de facto known Linux distro to rule them all, and in it bind them, would be good for the business and marketing aspect of Linux. isn't that what this conference is about? But, i never said that it would be proprietary. the development company would not be able to hide things about it, or favor those who create apps for it. it would be all open source, and free as in beer, just the way we like it. vive OSS
There is one problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There is one problem (Score:2)
Hmmmm. We can't use money. Sex? Naw, geeks too ugly and smelly. Perhaps offer to fix their home machines or make them a home network if they lean toward OSS. Harder to trace then money anyhow.
OSS in the third world (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is this? well, I can see one obvious reason: all the local governments, central government instances, institutes, dependencies, etc have in one point of time developed software systems. One of the first dreams about the internet was to make all the government information available for the public, but in a disordered environment where everyone creates their own solution, using their own contractors, using their own tools and methos, you end up with a mess.
I have seen a LOT of goverment software made in tools like FoxPro, VB, Pascal, etc by people who just had little knowledge in the field (mostly just-graduated people who had a "contact" with somebody making the desicions). The issue is that if you make standards and force the solutions to be Open Source (so anybody can audit your code) you gain a lot.
I have always put the peruvian case as an example, the problem is that they got too much publicity and the big boys pushed back. Here everything is being done a lot quieter, but the end goal is almost the same.
I have grat hopes in this kind initiatives.
Re:OSS in the third world (Score:1)
Re:OSS in the third world (Score:1)
Government Role is Open Source (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember the internet exists not because compuserve decided to open its protocals but because the US government did. Open Source is a public good, and really needs public support (see economics 101, tragedy of the commons, and freeloader impact for details).
The easiest way to support Open Source is to make Code contributions tax deductable. Tax exemption has driven the charity business in this country for years and it has funded a great deal of public good with minimal direct government control, and arguable one of the best overhead/performance ratios. Doesn't United Way operate at 11% overhead? Direct government departments like schools run at closer to 50% overhead with only a fraction of money actually spent in the classroom.
Again - this is a forum to discuss an effecient method for funding the public good which is Open Source through tax deductions for individuals who contribute.
AIK
From the perspective of the econ student... (Score:2, Insightful)
That said, I don't think I've seen or heard of any open source application aimed at sectors of governmental operation... Any input on that subject?
*(I use the terms 'fairness' and 'equality' relatively loosely, so they can still be applied to the subject of national government.)
Re:From the perspective of the econ student... (Score:1)
Zero transaction costs? Huh? (Score:2)
I'm really curious about this. I would have hoped "an econ student" would know better than this.
I can almost see where software costs might reduce towards zero. System costs would not. Facility costs would not. And as those wonderful TCO studies love pointing out, initial system costs are usually not the largest part of lifecycle costs.
I'm not saying OSS wouldn't reduce costs for governments. I expect it will/would. But don't try to sell it as "reduce transaction costs to zero." That is simply dishonest.
With all the improvements over time (Score:1)
How about making education a priority. (Score:4, Insightful)
Even those who are supposed to be teaching technology will tell you that they have this huge investment in proprietary MS, educational titles so they have no choice but to stick with it. However, when you demonstrate that those same apps work under Wine they come up with this shuffle the feet thing that basically comes back to well I don't know about these important things that the district decides on and it's not really my business because the district has its policies.
Then when I push for details on how the district is in such control over the individual classrooms they come to the part that really kills me which is where they say they have to use MS because it allows them to access the net and any non MS servers on their network are forbidden by the district. Perhaps this is just a snowjob from a teacher who is giving me a bunch of shit, but this is what I was told.
At least school districts should encourage teachers to try and use open source rather than actively discouraging them with district policies set by Redmond. The situation we're in is insane and this is tax payers money. I don't see how the free market argument works in favor of closed source when we're dealing with tax dollars to begin with.
Re:How about making education a priority. (Score:1)
Teachers are afraid of technology.
Therefore, technology should be something they can just 'do', and not have to spend hours agonizing over 'kGrader' or 'gGrader' or whatever.
I work in a large inner-city school district, and we DO use Open Source software for a lot of things. However, we also use lots of closed source, proprietary software (Novell and MS) because, quite frankly there is not a lot of real benefit cost wise to using Linux on the desktop. Do you realize what schools pay? 40 bucks per desktop, gets your ALL the MS products - it's even cheaper if you just want the OS. Linux is free licensing, but the training and reorientation of 15000 staff and teachers is unbelievably expensive.
Believe me, we are 'phasing' it in slowly...but there is no reason to just jump ship to Linux or BSD or whatever. Our primary goal is to keep the teachers feeling comfortable, and the students learning.
Teachers don't use linux, and aren't 'encouraged' to use Open Source, because teachers don't have the TIME to be bothered with something as completely unimportant as what software they are using. That is the JOB of the district support staff. Homogenity is a goal that is strongly enforced to keep our underpaid staff on top of things. Our teachers should be writing lesson plans and talking to parents and helping out students, not worrying about fscking their HDD's or anything like that.
We are mandated by law to provide certain levels of access and associated computer services, to ALL students. To do this, we place restrictions on what can, and cannot go on the network. We don't want Jane English Teacher to setup her Redhat workstation and say 'DHCP Server', and take out a whole net because of her misconfigured workstation. So, before spouting OSS Nonsense, take a step back to the real world, and look at what's important. Giving children an education is the goal, not pushing your software agenda.
And, fyi, MANY different systems are used by students now adays (Mac, Windows, Novell, hell, we even have CISCO classes.).
Re:How about making education a priority. (Score:1)
Re:How about making education a priority. (Score:1)
Contact YOUR university and ask why their distance learning platform doesn't support Linux or open source browsers. Ask them when they intend to start offering courses on open source software and why students have to pay astronomical amounts for Visual C++ when the far better g++ is free!
Believe me- they'll listen to students but only if you make yourselves heard
JustinRe:How about making education a priority. (Score:2)
If that five year old copy of Mavis Beacon Teaches typing works under Wine but requires a five hundred dollar upgrade to work under Win2k, it is truly scandalous for a district to justify spending their money treading water on the Microsoft payment plan.
And when the schools start cranking out students who think that Microsoft created the internet it's gone too far. I just had a friend's kid beg me not to install Linux on her Dad's PC because she wouldn't be able to use the internet as everybody knows that requires Microsoft Windows. I was stunned.
I'm all for the schools having more money for technology, but let's spend it on hardware. How about DLP projectors in the classrooms and more bandwidth for the school network? There are plenty of legitimately extravagant ways of spending money for education that aren't blatant corporate welfare.
Blah (Score:4, Informative)
Having said that, pushing Open Source in government, (ANY government, at least here in the US) is very tricky... this is changing a bit as security is becoming a bit of a critical issue for many agencies, and the "don't ask, don't tell" policies of many commercial shops w/r/t security is starting to wear thin. However, for the large part, commercial vendors still run the show. Our states' information management services division is very much a buzzword-du-jour type shop, pimping the latest redmond-hyped technology, often to the detriment of the taxpayer (when a simple open source solution would suffice just as easily, and cost only labor...) Of course, finding someone who can run a few "Wizards" to cobble together some microsoft apps into a work system is alot easier than finding people clueful enough about open source to make it work really well...
Also another prevailing attitude is the good old "you get what you pay for" stance, although this varies from place to place... the reaction covers the scale from "We don't want no hippie-pinko crap on our network" to "You can save us how much????"
Hopefully as time goes on, the attitudes in government towards open source will shift further towards the positive, but I think that this could take quite a while. Just a few thoughts....
Re:Blah (Score:1)
if you're reading replies to your post, please email me at sjwillis at yahoo dot com
i am currently involved in a state govt oss issue and i could use some feedback.
Open Source Thoughts? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Open Source Thoughts? (Score:1)
Security Concerns... (Score:1)
Is open source robust enough to resist tampering by whole countries? Wouldn't you have to run security checks on the lead developers? Imagine all of the back doors you could put in if you really tried. I guess this isn't much of a concern now because there isn't a strong movement for it.
Wouldn't you have to have at some point a closed government modified/verified branch?
Re:Security Concerns... (Score:1)
Re:Security Concerns... (Score:1)
Even the closest examination of the source code can miss things. How can you make sure that this wasn't done?
Re:Security Concerns... (Score:1)
The advantage of OS is that you've got *lots* of folks looking at the code, so very little will get past everyone.
I use OS where appropriate, proprietary software when I have to.
Being a Brit, I'd be much happier to see our government running OS solutions than M$, anyday....
Re:Security Concerns... (Score:1)
This is, of course, also the case with proprietary software. With proprietary software you have a closed development team that you can more easily identify and hold accountable. Who is accountable for an anonymously written module? The head developers?
You could have a whole army of terrorists developing new exploitations that have never been seen in the wild that are also adaquately disquised.
The only way around this that I see is to have the government write its own security standard to which open source software can conform and then to write a closed source security solution.
Re:Security Concerns... (Score:1)
The lead developer who is accepting patches would notice code that has potential security risks. If the lead developer was intentionally introducing bugs, Other develoeprs in the project could notice this as well.
And as another reply mentioned - A gov. agency could be created to audit versions before they are adapted into government use. You would not have to worry about the security and identity of the developers any more then you have to with companies. And, with a private company, the gov. doesn't have the ability to look at the code to determine how "Safe" it is to run.
Re:Security Concerns... (Score:1)
>The lead developer who is accepting patches
>would notice code that has potential security risks.
How do you know that? What happens if a hacker enables an exploitation of a previously unknown security risk? If you don't know what to look for how can you prevent it? At least with micro$oft, you can be reasonably more sure that their code is not meant to hurt you.
I think the government should use oss. But my point is that the government should never use open source software unmodified. They should also not release their modified version. The necessity of a government auditing agency is exactly the point I am making. Also, does the infrastructure needed to verify oss offset its affordability?
And yes I have a degree in comp. eng.
Re:Security Concerns... (Score:2)
Someone will ill intentions towards the US could infiltrate Microsoft just as easily as the PostgreSQL core developers group (to pick a Free Software package at random). The difference is that at Microsoft there are only a limited number of people that might be able to catch the problem, and they might also be "in on the joke." I certainly agree that the government should have their own security experts look over the source code to any package they use. Free Software makes that much easier. Heck, I look forward to the day when some of the CVS servers (or whatever) that I get my source from are .gov domains.
Re:Security Concerns... (Score:2)
In theory you can. That dosn't do much to stop proprietary software shipping with both deliberate "easter eggs" and debugging code still attached.
MS is Evil (Score:1, Funny)
I work for a VERY large portion of the US Gov. (Score:1, Informative)
The other MAJOR problem is that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing. The building I work in has 10 floors. Each one of these floors has their own computer room, it is massive BTW, and server/network teams. They ALL use different equipment for the SAME tasks.
On thing I see open source fixing is the buying process.
If Microsoft looses the gov., it looses the war (Score:4, Insightful)
It is this purchasing power that affects everyone. In the business world you try to lower the barriers of communication and collaboration with your main customers as much as possible. Often this means switching to applications that the customer users. They use EDI, so you use EDI; they accept bids on a website that requires Intnernet Explorer, you run a Windows machine to use Internet Explorer; they will only accept Word documents in response to Request for Proposals, you don't dare risk having something misformatted because you used OpenOffice and loose a million dollar bid.
Get the picture? If the government switches to Linux, OpenOffice, Apache, etc, and sends messages back to vendors that say, "I'm sorry, I couldn't open your attachment it was in a format my software doesn't understand," guess what? That vendor will change to fit what the goverment wants.
Now, Microsoft will say this is bad. It is bad...for Microsoft. It is bad for them because they will loose customers. It is not bad for capatalism, as they would try to say. Sure, it means that software companies like MS will not be as big as they have been in the past, they will cut jobs, they will have lower shareholder value, yada yada yada. But, this does not mean capitalism is hurt. It just means the money that was going to MS will now be going to other things.
Those other things might be other software companies, like Redhat, or others yet to be founded, or it might be that the money is spent to improve roads, cleanup toxic dumps, or build a high speed commuter rail. This doesn't make MS happy, but it makes taxpayers happy.
In fact, the government might not spend the money at all, instead, they might lower taxes. And the companies that save money by not buying MS will spend the money on capital improvements that enchance their business, or on the employees.
And when employees have more money in their pockets because of lower taxes and higher paychecks, they will spend it on cars, clothes, books, computers (which cost less because they don't have Windows on them), and other things.
This is why Microsoft fights tooth and nail to stop a goverment from switching. They did it in Mexico, they are doing it now in Peru and China.
Remember, Microsoft is a very good and successful company, but they are also a rich kid that hordes it's money. They do not stimulate the economy the way companies that spend do.
I write OS for the EPA (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm working on a couple of projects they tell me will be open source (I haven't seen the license yet, but I expect it to be fine) for the EPA [epa.gov]. There are some good reasons for making it open source:
There are a number of special purpose applications that governments have a particular need for, and there's no reason everyone should develop the software separately.
a lovely example (Score:1)
Re:RMS's failure is complete (Score:1, Troll)
Re:RMS's failure is complete (Score:1)