Oregon's Open Source Bill Stalled by Microsoft 256
Wanker writes "Previously on Slashdot we read about an
Oregon bill that would require government agencies to consider Open Source software in addition to whichever software they would normally consider. Unfortunately, House Bill 2892 is
getting stalled by "stiff opposition" from such unsurprising places as Microsoft. All you Oregon Slashdotters, it's time to call or write your representatives."
Good (Score:4, Insightful)
The individual departments should already be considering the most appropriate software that meets requirements, buying the best software at the best price for the job. This should be covered by existing laws.
We don't need additional laws promoting one kind v/s the other.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
But, IMHO, I think that the law is -1 redundant. The press coverage which has lead to the consideration fo the law has already meant that departments are going to think twice about Microsoft software and seriously consider open source. I think that in this case, the law would not change anything, and would probably increase the paperwork of such considerations. So, I agree, this law is irrelevant, and should not be passed, and Microsoft is probably doing themselves more damage by opposing it...
Re:Good? let's make it better.. (Score:5, Interesting)
And I think your post is a reply to a redundant post! Here's my suggestion to give some real TEETH to the law.. Closed Source software must be considered IF and ONLY IF open-source alternatives which satisfy the stated needs of the govt. agencies don't exist. Any agency in wilful violation of this legislation will be penalised... and the penalty terms could be laid down.
The fact of the matter is that Open Source is a special category of software and needs legislation. It's like an endangered species - it cannot sustain itself without public awareness and legal protection. It is highly useful though.
Slashdot stalled by Microsoft and Google??? (Score:2)
I did something crazy - went to news.google.com and tried to search for "Microsoft Slashdot Oregon" and got this:
Oregon Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration
Slashdot - 1 hour ago
attention on Slashdot will only force Microsoft
Re:Good? let's make it better.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Forging community spirit (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe from a purely practical standpoint, a law like this doesn't change much. Someone who really, really wants to buy Windows can say: I'm closing my eyes, I'm considering OSS...I count to ten, OK... now we can go buy Windows!
But that's all right!
The point of a law like this is making a statement and proving that there is a will on the part of the State government to have an agressive OSS approache.
A law like this also lets The People (tm) have a role in deciding what kind of software their gov't uses. Without tying the hands of state agencies, it sends a message.
The bottom line is the message getting sent. That is why MS is worried. It is more symbolic than anything, because it is another step towards widespread acceptance of OSS. And I think that MS is just as much worried about the symbolism of this law than about actually losing x Windows licences in Oregon.
Go Ducks! Good job on this one.
Re:Good (Score:5, Informative)
This makes for a real pain in the ass when you have to get a solution in place now and you have a budget of $0 for aquiring the necessary software from the approved vendor. This, sadly, is the case in a lot of state agencies.
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Ironically enough, I think Microsoft's own spokeswoman called this one right. From the end of the article:
Laws shouldn't take si
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
How many people who just want to create a small database for their department is going to want to write up a 40 page paper justifying the use of Microsoft Access? They won't, so they'll find something which takes less work to acquire even if it is actually more expensive to setup and use.
The people sponsoring this bill obviously understand how government bureacracies work, and they have setup wording that sounds reasonable on the surface, but would have devastating impact. It's manipulative, but that's frequently how you get bad laws passed.
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
Many existing laws require certain "certifications" that only exist for commercial packages or are so expensive that only for-profit corporations can foot the bill. If the government has baseline standards that eliminate open source as a choice, change is necessary.
Swallow a spider to catch the fly (Score:2)
Agreed. But this is the wrong change. If there's a regulation that mandates proprietary solutions for whatever reason, that regulation should be removed. Adding another law or regulation to fix it gives you two bad regulations, instead of zero, which is what you want.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Now its possible that win32 is the new requirment for any purchase and Microsoft would like it to stay this way.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Windows NT sure as hell does not fit cleanly into the POSIX standard.
Cooperative multi-tasking, yay!
Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to see any law enacted that dictates any tools with which to perform a job. The best tool for the job should be decided upon by the individual(s) performing the work or defining the work. For instance, several years ago, the IT department attempted to tell me that I could not use a Macintosh to perform my work and that furthermore, I had to purchase a Windows machine. I informed them that there was no way that some IT knucklehead (no offence to Slashdot IT folks) was going to dicate to me the tools with which to perform my job and that I in fact was going to purchase a Macintosh from my grant.
I would however be in favor of laws (and I suspect they already exist) that indicate government contracts have to be bid out and decided upon by 1) The best solution and 2) the lowest bid.
It's political (Score:2)
This could be true in business, but we are talking about gov't here. Like it or not, the OSS vs. proprietary debate has become political. I expect to see more proposals like this Oregon law.
Re:It's political (Score:2)
So, I'd like to see it all liscensed under a liscense that permits those who modify it to change the terms of the liscense. Kernel Hacker Bob could liscense his changes to i
Re:It's political (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL isn't restrictive for anybody, as long as you don't distribute it. You can change the code and lock it up, and as long as you don't distribute anything no one will say a word. Perfect for gov't, which is not supposed to be in the software business anyway.
Kernel Hacker Bob could liscense his changes to it under the
Re:It's political-NSALinux. (Score:2)
Then we would have never had NSALinux. Good thing rules aren't blindly followed.
It's still not the software business -- i.e. they're not making money off of it. Of course, if it wasn't for the GPL, the NSA might not have felt bound to release the source to their changes -- even if it would only have been absolutely mandated if they were distributing it outside of their organization.
The point of the GPL is not to give c
Re:It's political (Score:2)
The problem with this approach is the taxpayers end up paying for the software twice: once for the government to develop it, and again when they purchase Microsoft software.
Sure, we're arguing ideology here but Microsoft has in fact taken open
Re:Good (Score:2)
It might be more prudent to look at the average bid, as the ones at the extremes of the scale are likely to be bogus. Too low usually means they're smoking some sort of crack about their ability to deliver. Too high is probably old tech trying to stay relevant. Just a thought.
Re:Good (Score:2)
Actually, I'd buy that argument as you typically get what you pay for.
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Not true in the world of small vendor-based software. If a vendor (consulting group with a software product) has a software package that is in use by three or four government or big industry (or, in the case of my experience, utility) entities, they have to charge outrageous licensing and maintenance fees to keep their staff of programmers employed. Annual maintenance fees on the order of US$500,000 are not too far out of the ordin
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
Not necessarily. After all, someone needs to get paid to implement said system and those funds could be counted into the bid price.
Re:Good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly how will this help in benefitting the taxpayer? In the matter of H1Bs, the legislation was specifically phrased "foreigners may be employed ONLY WHERE such talent is not locally avbl". Only a similar strong wording can promote Open Source.
I'd like a legislation which states "Agencies which consider software purchas
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
Should be. Wish it worked that way.
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
Huge lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck Oregon.
Re:Huge lobby (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Huge lobby (Score:2, Interesting)
In a truly open market open source has many advantages over closed source. However, open source cannot compete against the massive amounts of cash Microsoft is able to put into their marketing (propoganda) campaigns.
Re:Huge lobby (Score:3, Insightful)
The Clippy Clause (Score:2)
The Clippy Clause (Score:2)
"It looks like you're trying to buy $2 million of software..."
Required by law? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ain't that a bit worrying? You've got to make laws to prevent government to waste your tax dollars by giving them to rich software companies, without even thinking that there are free alternatives. Duh!
Re:Required by law? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is the next step to pass a law that non-open source must also be considered? Let open source stand on its own two feet
Re:Required by law? (Score:2)
I slightly agree with Microsoft on this. Software should be used based on it's merits and it's support. If there were real open source support contracts out there, and it was competitive, people would use it without it being mandated.
I think it's bullshit that this bill is, in effect, forcing people to c
Oregon is not new to corruption by selfish interes (Score:5, Interesting)
In my opinion, the forces of government corruption are strong in Oregon: Complicated methods corrupt Oregon government. [futurepower.net]
Re:Oregon is not new to corruption by selfish inte (Score:2)
In addition, eight prisons were forced to close, releasing over 4,000 convicted inmates onto those lovely Oregon streets. At the same time, over 300 state policemen were fired from the force. The parole board program was revamped so that neith
big deal (Score:2)
Re:big deal (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill would mean that instead of just buying MS Office, they'd have to look at StarOffice and decide which would be better. Then they can still go ahead and buy MS Office anyway, if that's really what they need.
Re:big deal (Score:3, Insightful)
No-no-no - For organizations with very limited budgets, such as schools, a better admin would also consider the most economical solution:
windows (which ever version is already installed) AND oss (Open Office)
And that's probably what's got Microsoft's panties all tied in a knot.
House Bill 2892 (Score:2, Informative)
NOTE: Matter within { + braces and plus signs + } in an
amended section is new. Matter within { - braces and minus
signs - } is existing law to be omitted. New sections are within
{ + braces and plus signs + }
LC 2937
House Bill 2892
Sponsored by Representative BARNHART (at the request of Ken
Barber)
SUMMARY
The following summary is not prepared by the sponsors of the
measure and is not a p
I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill says Oregon should have to consider open-source software when upgrading systems... Where is the law that says Oregon CAN'T do that already? What a stupid waste of legislation, no matter how big you are on open source. Are politicians so stupid they need a law to tell them they can consider obvious options?
Uhmm... wait... don't answer that last question. I figured it out on my own.
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhmm... wait... don't answer that last question. I figured it out on my own.
This is exactly why we need this bill.
Because by your argument, we shouldn't have the DMCA. All those things are better covered by existing laws. But the DMCA exists. We need to be a little more realistic and support laws like this to gain some ground.
Yes, laws Should make sense, but they don't; so we need to play the political game.
Re:I'm confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but I don't share that attitude... Somebody needs to stop this insanity!
Everything is so over-legislated nowadays. There are zillions of laws saying you can't do this, you have to do that, congress "shall" do this.. etc.
You're never going to make it better by playing the political game and heaping on "good laws" as band-aid fixes for all the bad ones.
Honestly the only way we're going anywhere but dow
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
It would be nice if this attitude worked. In fact, it does do some good to have a lunatic-fringe out there, being naive.
Unfortunately, if you actually want to the world to be a better place, you have to play the political game. That is just the way it is. Politics isn't perfect, but that is the way stuff works. If people hadn't voted for Nader, Gore would be president right now.
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
And that comment was supposed to be surrounded in <constroversy></controversy> tags, but Slashdot filtered them out
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
And they'll never get into office in any substantial way (I know New Hampshire (or Vermont?) has some libertarians in office, and Jesse Ventura was from a third party as well).
Why? Because
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
Personally, I find the one major group you can trust less than Microsoft in this world is the Government!
Also, the anti-corporation argument doesn't mak
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
And all I have to say is, why the fuck not? freshmeat not good enough for them? They have to spend taxpayer's money to get the same stuff at an inflated cost?
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
Re:I'm confused (Score:5, Informative)
Check out http://www.fsf.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html the granddady of the "movement" (hate the word movement but can't think of anything better) RMS even says it.
The term "free software" is sometimes misunderstood--it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom.
Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial...
There are lots of no-cost non-OSS software out there, goto your favorite utility website and download something. I can download winamp and use it at no-cost, is it OSS??? No. Again no-cost != OSS, if it did the bill would say that they are forced to look at no-cost software instead of OSS.
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
I really can't think of any OSS that costs a company to purchase either. Other than having to pay for a distribution CD. You still aren't paying licenses. Who would want to contribute freely to an open source project that is going to turn around and sell the software to profit off your work that you aren't rewarded for?
What is an exmaple of this? I'm always willing to reduce my igno
Re: I'm confused (Score:2, Funny)
Ah, clever! Post your talkback twice and you can get more than the legal karma limit for it.
And the editors can hardly complain about double posting! (Ehrm, you wouldn't happen to be one of the editors, would you?)
Re:I'm confused (Score:2)
He could be just a regular hardcore Reaganite. Reagan talked constantly about reducing the size of government, while running up the biggest deficits anyone had ever seen.
Usually reducing the size of gov't means cutting Welfare and Medicare/Medicaid, but spending tons on defense.
That reminds me of someone else...
Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly. (Score:2)
My basic point is that there shouldn't have to be a law here. The government should ALWAYS consider all their options, rather than just automatically going with Microsoft.
On top of that, it's a wasteful law that won't actually accomplish much. Does anyone really believe that they're going to start using OpenOffice.org at the DMV? I think this is a publicity stunt here, they're just trying to put a little pressure on Microsoft.
I just believe they should be
Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly. (Score:2)
At a local university, I have contact with a student group, with about 20+ (not much more than that), and recently due to the fact that if money is not spent, it is lost to the organization, the president wanted to get Adobe's PDF generator. (about 200 dollars) The reason? It had one feature, either not present or which had not been found, which was not needed (User Editable PDFs (sort of a 'cool I could do this, but I don't need to.')), and the allocated money (to the student organizat
Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly. (Score:5, Interesting)
A few good points:
1. Good chance at finding a cheaper solution for the initial implementation.
2. Good chance at finding a more secure solution.
3. The solution would be maintainable, and free to upgrade to meet future technologies.
4. No source code is hidden from you.
5. If they decide not to use an evaluated OSS solution then the resulting report could greatly benefit that OSS projects future.
6. If the OSS solution is decided on, it will bring this OSS project further into the public for other's to consider using.
7. The more OSS solutions that organizations are aware of and implement, the more organizations that will be aware of and implement them as a compounding result.
etc
8. Future change: If something is free, you aren't held back from changing because of all the money you already dumped into it. And you most likely wouldn't get involved in a platform that was designed to lock you into it with no escape (microsoft), so you'd have a better chance at changing in the future as well.
Someone else list bad points; I'm going to bed.
Re:Your confusion cleared up, instantly. (Score:2)
if the agency decides against the OSS solution, the letter explaining why would be available to the project maintainers. good feedback.
open source laws are bad -- vote for open formats (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost issue is there, but people buying software already consider cost as an issue. They probably don't think about the opaqueness of data, which is a much more important issue.
- adam
Re:open source laws are bad -- vote for open forma (Score:2)
Re:open source laws are bad -- vote for open forma (Score:2)
So I think the first bill also has to say "consider", but it should be
Re:open source laws are bad -- vote for open forma (Score:2)
And for that reason the requirement must be more specific than just saying standard. It must require a written standard which anybody are free to copy and implement. And it must also be made a requirement that if software turns out not to obey the standard, it must either be fixed or replaced.
Re:open source laws are bad -- vote for open forma (Score:2)
- adam
Let the market decide (Score:2)
Re:Let the market decide (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let the market decide (Score:2)
I still stand by my point however (in my sober state). There are corporations lobbying for solutions that may be Linux-based, but that doesn't mean they are pushing Open Source solutions. In some cases (Oracle), they are pushing Linux as a
Not exactly stalled.... (Score:5, Informative)
"Behold! Representative Jerry Drummel, at 16:52PDT, calls me back.
I spoke with him for about 10 minutes. To summarize:
* He scratched out the discussion of the bill in the general committee because he wasn't happy with the amendments. Two issues:
- Issue with the "where as" clauses. I didn't know what this meant.
- Issue with parts of section 2, did not go into details
* He has been working with Barnhart and and Ken Barber [co-sponsors of the bill] since the bills creation.
* He is the one who invited Riverdale and the MESD down to testify.
* Once the bill is finalized and approved through the General committee,
he would be a yes vote.
So, I don't think the bill is dead, just standard government bureaucracy. I've never had a representative call me back though, which
was impressive. Then again, maybe I'm easily impressed when it comes to
legislature. "
So it would appear that The Oregonian was a bit premature in declaring the death of this bill. It looks like it will go through some more revision, though.
based on.... Marketing? (Score:2, Insightful)
In other words, it should be based on how well that software is Marketed, not on how well it performs.
Would they not discover the "overal merits and value" by evaluating software instead of ONLY listening to the production of one of the most aggressive marketing engines in the world, and online opinion?
no OSS company to sue (Score:5, Insightful)
using OSS requires taking risk. these people won't do it. it is so much easier to "just use microsoft". you can't be faulted for making a "bad decision". but you choose to go with OSS, and it has even 1/10 the problems that microsoft's "solutions", you get your ass fried. please remember, some of the problems with public procurement:
1) if you get $100, and spend $105, you demonstrated a need
2) if you get $100, and spend $85, next year you get $75, since yoiuy don't ned it, and guess what, the schmuck who overspent, get's your chunk
3) it isn't you're money, you don't care
4) typically your purchasing decisions will reflect on your higher ups, whose recommendations you need to advance
5) cheaper is better, most of the time. if you get 20 of item A for $100 and 25 of item B for $100, B is better choice. but, if you get 30 OSS items for $0, see rule #1
my father spent thirty years selling, and schools and gov'ts were among his clients. they were most notorious for doing this: they'd see his competitors crap, buy it, and when it broke, he'd sell them a better system. so the purchasing agent got to:1) buy more for less, 2) blame company for product problem, 3) got credit for solving problem, 4) get's bigger budget next year
you think i'm full of shit? how i wish i was. if you have never spent much time in schools (i have) or government, you are missing quite a learning experience. so, it is no surprise that OSS is not widely adopted in public service. but, call and write your elected officials. remember, THEY care about public dollars.
Re:no OSS company to sue (Score:5, Informative)
That old chestnut! I wish this was Plastic so I could mod you "-1 disingenuous." Every time there's an OSS vs. commercial software debate, someone brings up the "someone to sue" line as if it had never been thought of before.
Now go read a commercial software license. Any commercial software license. You don't have someone to sue. MS Office could wipe out your backups and take your children hostage, but Microsoft isn't liable, because you agreed to their EULA. You don't have someone to sue. You might possibly get your purchase price back in an extreme case.
<sarcasm>Oh, never mind. Now you've set me straight.</sarcasm>
Say, why is it that the most clueless, argumentative posts include a self-referential line that ostensibly clears up that sort of confusion? How thoughtful.
This is an old, old criticism of institutional use of OSS and it has never been valid.
Slashdot stalled by Microsoft and Google???? (Score:2)
I did something crazy - went to news.google.com and tried to search for "Microsoft Slashdot Oregon" and got this:
Oregon Bill Would Require Open Source Consideration
Slashdot - 1 hour ago
attention on Slashdot will only force Microsoft
Facts about HB 2892 (Score:5, Interesting)
As someone who has done actual research on Oregon HB 2892 (reading the bill and talking to its sponsor), I'd like to try to clear up some misconceptions with a short FAQ:
Q: What did HB 2892 do?
A: Two things: Require state agencies to (1) consider open source in procurement, and (2) procure only software that supports open formats for data storage and interchange.
Q: Why the past tense in the previous question?
A: Because it appears that the language of the bill has been compromised to increase its chance of passage. I haven't yet looked for the revised wording.
Q: Why is (1) necessary---can't state agencies consider open source anyhow?
A: According to the bill's sponsor, the nature of state procurement rules makes open source procurement difficult. Because there is no sponsoring organization that will bid contracts for typical open source alternatives, agencies may be bound by law or regulation to ignore them. (1) changes that.
Q: Doesn't the language of (1) force open software on state agencies?
A: No, it forces them to consider it. In a plain reading of the rules, a state agency should be prepared to explain why it selected a particular package over open source alternatives. HB 2892 has no detailed description of the criteria or methods of consideration.
Q: Do state agencies use a lot of open source anyhow?
A: Yes. Agencies that already use open source software generally support the bill: see above.
Q: Is (1) the most important part of the bill?
Hope this helps.A: No, both provisions (1) and (2) are important. Perhaps the chief concern of the bill's sponsor, Rep. Barnhart, is legacy systems and lock-in. (1) addresses this issue by encouraging continuously-maintainable systems. (2) addresses the issue by allowing seamless replacement of systems.
Re:Facts about HB 2892 (Score:2)
the lockin created by proprietary file formats is where monopolies lie. it is critical that government organizations move to file formats which will allow them to choose software based on preformance and cost instead of legacy issues.
if (1) gives organizations the option to use opensource software in cases where this option did not previously exsist, then i can see the need for it.
Re:Facts about HB 2892 (Score:2)
This is the key. And yet, when I listened to the arguments given in the General Committee, not one person mentioned this! NO ONE! They all talked about how great open source software is and how it works so much
Microsoft has a point... (Score:4, Funny)
"We believe that procurement decisions should be based on the overall merits and value of the software under consideration," said Alex Mercer, a Microsoft spokeswoman.
In other words, go with open source.
In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
In other late-breaking news, the sky is blue and computer chips contain silicon. Film at 11.
Microsoft (Score:2)
I tell everyone I meed in the IT field even my VP that is very Pro-Microsoft. You have to educate people.
atto
Missing the point (Score:4, Insightful)
We'd Like to use PC's but we need IBM otherwise we will look foolish
Nobody ever got fired for using IBM
Now updated to: Nobody got fired for using Microsoft
This bill gives OSS legitimacy. It means when someone suggests an OSS solution it has to be considered and can't be dismissed as that shareware crap.
Remember most IT directors are political creatures. They are people that are much more adept at managing organization political games than they are at producing software, network infrastructure, or technology of any kind. They appreciate a situation where they one acceptable choice and the rest are no brainer rejects, It saves on the thinking that way.
The law forces IT people that otherwise wouldn't give a second look to OSS to do so. Thats what Microsoft doesn't want. They are fighting the battle of mindshare.
Bill is important... (Score:2)
Kjella
call, write, volunteer, donate (Score:2)
If you find that your congress-critter is borderline/bad, but the best of what's available, you may want to dona
Use the best software for the job (Score:2, Insightful)
So if, as Microsoft says, their software is the best, why should they need to lobby against other software?
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Its a sad state indeed but less the %25 of Americans even read the paper or watch the news. They are uninformed and get there information from commercials.
Re:Motivation (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oregon Rulez (Score:2)
Re:Oregon Rulez (Score:2)
Re:Oregon Rulez (Score:2)
Re:Oregon Rulez (Score:2)
How's that? You mean we should have let property taxes rise at an uncapped rate? I think the cap is 3% per year, which is about what inflation has been running for the last, oh, 10 years or so. Why should property taxes go up faster than the inflation rate?
Given that a lot of us techies in Oregon are not working right now (myself included), it's kind'a good that I can count on what my property tax bill will be come November - the way it was before it was har
Income tax, but... (Score:2)
The Property tax cap isn't the reason (Score:2)
How's that? You mean we should have let property taxes rise at an uncapped rate? I think the cap is 3% per year, which is about what inflation has been running for the last, oh, 10 years or so. Why should property taxes go up faster than the inflation rate?
Given that a lot of us techies in Oregon are not working right now (myself included), it's kind'a good that I can count on what my property tax bill will be come November - the way it was before it was har
Re:Oregon Rulez (Score:2)
Re:Action speaks louder than words (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, that really wouldn't be necessary. They have to deal with it already. They just consider it part of their operating expenses, and they don't realize that the cost might go down significantly if they used an alternative. They won't realize that until they try it, or until they hear about other places trying it successfully.
Switching platforms is expensive, and the first year after switch
Re:Action speaks louder than words (Score:3, Interesting)
Pardon me, but if you've read the news lately, you'll know that my current legislators cannot accurately operate a calculator, so the idea of them being able to defend critical government systems and networks from attack is ludicrous.
Please don't bring what's left of my local government to it's knees - my children need to go to school.
Re:Wait, isn't this immature? (Score:2)
If slashdot told everyone to randomly spam anyone and everything related to the Oregon's government, then it would be immature. But, as the IBPhoenix project has done, they are simply asking people to complain to the people that have the power to do someth
Re:"Value" of commercial vs. open-source software (Score:2, Insightful)
In a lot of cases oss software will be more cost/effective (say apache vs. anything out-there), but in other cases there is no oss solution for a particular problem, or what exist is so feature-less, or so complicated to install/maintain that a comercial equivalent
Re:School districts are bad too (Score:5, Interesting)
something else, too. they just don't know linux and don't want to. they have no need to save the district money nor do they have any need nor desire to improve their skills. school district jobs are permanent jobs. they don't want to rock the boat. if the district dared move to linux, they'd be out of work or would have to retool their skills. they want neither. i could go on with endless stories but i won't bore you. keep up the fight, and take it to your school board. here's what you do. find just one area that OSS can do more, for less. it shouldn't be too hard. present it to the school board. they have their meetings open to the public. these people are elected. they care about votes. if they can say they saved money and improved __________ (fill inthe blank), let them get the credit, and you'll be more successful. for instance, give them examples where this "linux thing" has been adopted by companies, to show that it is a viable, powerful, etc., solution. i'd love to help.
i have run into lots of problems too. keep up the good fight. the latin phrase goes something like non illegetimum carborundum. don't let the bastards get you down!!! email me if you need assisstance. rmandel AT hartdistrict.org (sorry for the typos, it's 1AM where i'm,at)
Re:My Response as an Oregon Resident (Score:2)
the government should use the best tool for the job. you can give opens
Re:Keeping track (Score:2)
Actually, Oregon IS the first. Not the first state to have an open-source bill introduced (that honor belongs to California), but the first state where an open-source bill actually got a committee hearing.