Advocating Open Source Within the Gov't 207
There's an interesting piece running on Newsforge concerning advocacy of Open Source within the (US) Federal Government. The Feds, as we've talked about here before, are caught in an interesting cross fire - and based on personal experience, I can tell you that they are looking at it. Carpe Diem, folks.
Save a fortune on licensing fees (Score:1)
There might be an inital expense in retraining workers to use the new software, but the benefits seem to outweigh the costs in the long run.
Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees (Score:2)
Have you ever tried to get a beaurocracy to look beyond immediate expense?
Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees (Score:1)
So obviously, there's a new expense, but it's not in re-training the workers, but in training them to begin with, which would be necessary anyway (if that -- there are lots of unemployed, yet skilled tech people out there, no?).
The plan makes the government look good, for creating jobs, it makes "us" happy, for promoting open source development, and (IAN an economist, mind you) makes for a better economy (locally and beyond (?)), with the lower unemployment and all.
Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees (Score:1)
Re:Save a fortune on licensing fees (Score:2)
There can be a downside to that as well. If the US Government is mainly licensing US software (and it is) that's economic stimulus.
Government should be *contributing* too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Government should be *contributing* too (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Government should be *contributing* too (Score:2)
I pay for the fire brigade, so I get my house fire put out. That is the product of the fire brigade.
Re:Government should be *contributing* too (Score:1)
Yeah, I've been dying to rewrite the code for the targeting mechanism on my B-2
support (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:support (Score:1)
Oh, like I can call someone at MicroSoft and get them to help me with my Windows problems...
Re:support (Score:1)
Yes, you can, you just have to pay for it. IIRC you get free help for 2 incidents, after that, better get a nightjob if you need to call a lot...
Re:support (Score:3, Interesting)
This is exactly the problem I've run in to at the gov't site where I work. I've posted about this in other open source thread discussions, but will mention it again here. At my site, the two responses I get when I want to use an open source tool (Nessus, Ethereal, and Snort being the top three I try to use) are: 1)We can't get support for those, and 2)But we can't use free software because someone might have put a trojan in there and we'll never know.
Of course, since I build the tools from source, #2 doesn't really apply as we could always check them. And I've gotten more support from various mailing lists when I've had questions about my open source tools than I've ever been able to get for commercial products. But the gov't morons here don't like those answers.
The other thing you'll run in to is that most gov't idiots like to have someone to blame if something goes wrong. With open source stuff, you can't get anything back from the creators if you have a problem, since many of the creators having nothing but their talents. On the other hand, you can't get anything from the commercial entities because of the EULA, but the gov't brainless zombies believe that because they are a business, they can be sued. Besides, we've never had a problem with my open source tools, just the commercial ones.
RagManX
Money makes the world go 'round (Score:1, Insightful)
Open source discussed in the World Social Forum (Score:3, Informative)
Just as a pointer: Richar Stallman participated in a debate about patents and trademarks in the World Social Forum realized in Porto Alegre, Brazil. See this link: http://www.softwarelivre.rs.gov.br/ (sorry, its in portuguese!!!) and this one http://www.fsm.rs.gov.br/ing/index.php (in english!).
Re:Open source discussed in the World Social Forum (Score:1)
Lots of them were born AND educated elsewhere.
Lots of projects started elsewhere: SAMBA, Webmin and others spring to mind...
Re:Open source discussed in the World Social Forum (Score:1)
What I mean is, computers are probally the most significant, far reaching, invention that humans, and our human ancestors, have ever invented--just short of fire, in fact. Well, I guess agriculture beats out computers. But that puts em at third place. By loose logic, it follows that software and code being developed and given away for FREE on those machines has the potential to shape and transform human society more than almost anything else. You wanna start the next revolution? Think Marx was right? Stick your ass into high gear, code like mad, and trust me, you will shake the titans of industry. Some call those people tyrants. You'd be hero, you know. After all, computers programmers will control the future, I think that much is clear. Well, maybe not. The military will control the future. But programmers will get to write the history books, and if you think Bill Gates is going to go down favorably in the history books written by a bunch of programmers, you're probally quite mistaken.
Of course (Score:2)
Give me a break (Score:4, Insightful)
You really think that all the oil/health care/tobacco/technology industries are going to keep quiet over this type of thing? It impacts them too, you know.
The government will not change because the corporations (who own the government, figuratively speaking) will not let them change. Until we get rid of campaign contributions and begin doing public funding of campaigns, the corporations will continue to control the government and the open-source movement (and all other movements) will get stomped on.
Not necessarily (Score:2)
This only prevents a global change. Individual managers can decide if they want to use a certain open source product. If enough do this, it could initiate change from the inside out, showing the reduced costs, benefits from having the code, etc.
Software is something that bigwigs in the gov't can't make a decision on without proven results relating to government, so it's a no-brainer to calve to the people that are contributing money to their compaigns or parties (and have a proven track record). If the software is going to save their department millions in licensing fees and maintainance while providing the same functionality, then they have to justify why they want the costly proprietary solution TO THE PUBLIC. As open source becomes more commonplace, this will become an increasingly difficult thing to do.
just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns (Score:3, Interesting)
That's about the worst thing that could happen. Who gets this public money? Anybody that throws his hat in the ring, including my neighbor Jim-Bob who's just doing it for the cash? How do you decide who qualifies, and how it's apportioned? If it's based on previous elections, you've just decided to keep incumbent parties in office forever, which is precisely the current problem. What about third parties? What about people (like me) who object to subsidizing views I don't agree with? Or apolitical types who don't want to fund politicians at all? Why should you steal from (tax) them for politicians' gain? Thomas Jefferson said, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." Some of us still believe that. If I want to support X's campaign, I will...but I don't expect you to, nor would I force you to. If you want to support his opponent Y, you can go ahead, but don't expect or force me to help you.
(The Constitution [constitutionparty.com] and Libertarian [lp.org] parties refuse to accept any government money they qualify for on this principle. Rare to find a candidate that is willing to stand on principles these days.)
What we need is not campaign finance reform but electoral process reform. I should be able to give unlimited support to support the views I agree with. There should be no caps, no spending limits. However, current electoral process favors the incumbent Duopoly and discourages third parties. Why are they called "third" parties? Because plurality voting exposes a false sense of a two-party system! Ever heard of the "wasted vote" problem, or voting for "the lesser of two evils"? We should not have to choose between two evils! Condorcet voting gives every contender a fair chance, because voters' freedom of conscience is preserved.
Changing to the Condorcet method would be the single best thing that could happen to American politics. I don't see reforms like this happening any time soon. The entrenched parties have too much to lose, so they're not likely to make it easier to defeat them. But something must be done.
Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns (Score:2)
What cash?
Public funding of elections generally means you get a pre-paid postage meter and an address list, and sometimes it means you get a five minute slot on TV at the same time, but on a different day, as your opponents.
Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns (Score:2)
Really though, I'd like to end campaign financing in the way we see it today. I'd rather "fund" politicians by giving them free spots on TV, funding debates, and the like. This way nobody is supporting anyone else's ideas, they're only supporting an open forum in which people can speak. Like everyone pitching in to buy a soapbox, without limits on who can use it.
As for who got to use it, I'd say that you'd need to hit a certain number of signatures at various stages. To start, maybe 10k signatures. That'd get state-wide air-time. Maybe 30k to get nation-wide, and 250k to get time during the finals. But without as hard of a limit. And ideally based on the population of their home state, etc.
My rough steps (with some basic notes as to the reasoning) would be to ban outright all contributions to a politician (call it treason, it's essentialy an attempt to bribe government). Limit campaign spending to some small sum, $10k or so, require receipts. (Make enough things free like TV spots as required that a lot of money isn't important). Let people contribute, but only by going to a campaign office and helping (cash donations favour the rich, time is something everyone has the same ammount of in a day.)
Taking off spending caps would simply let someone like Bill Gates outright buy a candidate and likely get the elected. It's also lead to a little favoritisms once elected. (There's really no way you can give money to a politician and not be bribing them.)
However, voting reform I do agree with. A simple system where you could vote for every party you want and the number of seats given was chosen by the their percentage of total votes. Nobody would be unwilling to vote for little parties.
Re:just say NO to publicly-funded campaigns (Score:2)
As the the taxed to support thing...
I wasn't saying I should take $10 from you and give it to the democrats, or the skinheads. I was saying that we should all pitch in $10 and make sure that there's a forum that anyone, who can get public support, can use.
The public access cable channels are an example. The government grants companies a monopoly on certain things (frequency with which they broadcast TV shows) and it seems reasonable that part of the deal for this spectrum would be that the station make one channel of frequency and a simple studio plus staff, available to the people.
It's an example of something I couldn't ever afford (how many million $s to buy frequency and a transmitter, and a studio, etc) and we couldn't rely on people to simply buy airtime because stations could refuse to help anyone whose policies they disagree with. However if instead of charging $100M for 10 channel of frequency, we charge $90 + (public access) for 10 channels + 1 to be used for public access, the station doesn't have to foot the bill.
The dirty little secret about the US (land of opportunity) is that fewer than 5% of all millionares (actually $10M, I think) got that way of their own merit. The rest either inherited their money, or started rich and simply increased their fortune.
Look also at groups who have been specifically disadvantaged (blacks, the American-Japanese in WW2 (put into camps), the native Indians, etc) and are, or were, poor for reasons quite unrelated to their skills and motivation.
I think it's pretty clear that while there are some poster-boy millionaries (Dave Thomas?) who are at the top because of their abilities, many people are either rich, or poor, by chance, not merit.
Sure, the poor should try to better themselves, but going from $100 to $10,000 is at least as hard as going from $1M to $100M, yet we don't look down on people who can't do the latter.
I hate the democratic welfare state, I think it's self perpetuating and punishes the workers to support the lazy. However, I can see that some welfare truly helps the economy.
If you let some crack-mom raise ten kids on welfare and she raises them all to be bums, nobody gains. However, if you let an injured man sit on welfare until he heals, at which point he goes out and gets his old job back, you've helped the economy. If he had to get a menial job he might never have healed well enough to do a decent job again, meaning he'd be stuck with crap jobs for life.
And if you fund free schools you can educate those ten children of the crack-mom and let them make something of themselves. If you say (however justified it may be) that she had em, she should support em, you'll just guarantee that they don't go anywhere.
Some taxation, even for things you dislike personally, can help tremendously.
Letting the poor (in this case, it means anyone without at least $50M) be involved in politics and have access to decent schools means that they can try to better themselves. Letting only the idle (and 95% unworthy) rich control everything only perpetuates an unbalanced system where the less rich, despite being harder and smarter workers, are penalized just because they didn't start with a ton of money.
Re:Give me a break (Score:2)
I suspect it all comes down to how exposed they are. If it gets a lot of publicity and they feel like the public is watching them, they might do the right thing. If they think they aren't being watched, they will happily shovel taxpayer's money into furnaces, Microsoft's pockets, etc.
Cockroaches hate the light.
Re:Give me a break (Score:2, Informative)
Campaign finance reform has little to do with corporations' hold over the government. If individuals (myself included, I admit) would utilize the representative system already in place, we would be able to wield the influence we think is to be had only the the rich and the corporate.
Write your congressman. Use your right to vote. If everyone who wanted to see Linux used in the government would write to all of their local, regional, and national representatives, we would see a lot more Linux used in the government. What John Weathersby is doing is good and necessary, but that doesn't mean we should expect him to do it alone.
Write. Vote. The power is and always has been in our hands.
Re:Give me a break (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Give me a break (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what you get: you have no idea what you get. What's going over that wire? Who knows? What's your OS doing in its secret private places. Giving you a wank job, for all you know.
Any government that would agree to run, or should I say "be run", by such systems would have to be nuts. Now maybe the US could pressure MS into allowing government auditors code access. Maybe they could get a backdoor, too. But I doubt that priviledge would extend to governments around the world.
I've heard said (I don't know this for sure) that the reason PC boxes are beige, is that some federal gov't standard mandated that color. The governent being the hugest customer around, the cost effective thing to do was to manufacture to their standards. Whether this is a true story or not, the fact remains that no organization has clout like the US federal government. It looks to me that unless the Feds want MS to give them a poke in the eye, that they might seriously like to consider alternatives.
Re:Give me a break (Score:1)
We have run everything important under Linux and have done so for a number of years. Who exactly are the "Feds" you are refering to?
Eric
Re:Give me a break (Score:1)
You honestly think that the Microsoft lobbiests will let the Feds choose something that's open-source over their proprietary formats?
Just how many jobs does Microsoft create in Trent Lott's Mississippi, for example? Just how beholden to Microsoft are politicians in CA with Silicon Valley, VA and NY with AOL/TW headquarters, NC where Redhat is headquartered, etc.?
Best,
-jimbo
Re:You've got it backwards (Score:2)
any rights at all?
Not only Open Source, but also Open Standards (Score:5, Informative)
See the article [xml.com]
.micah
Re:Not only Open Source, but also Open Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1, Funny)
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1)
Someone the government can call if it breaks and say "fix it!" - and have someone working on it less than 4 hours later. If some Linux company can provide that, then we have a chance.
And of course, you know that's doesn't really happen, right ?
Companies like HP or Sun don't jump because a customer says so. Much less in 4 hours.
Customers have this illusion that they call the shots, but the truth of the matter is that you can threaten "I'll dump Sun/HP if this is not fixed pronto!", but no one in their right mind actually does this. The cost of switching to another vendor is way too prohibitive. And companies know this.
And I know this because I've worked both for the goverment, and for the "Big Company"
They will...but it costs $$$ (Score:2, Interesting)
>
>Companies like HP or Sun don't jump because a customer says so. Much less in 4 hours.
Nonsense. You can get under-4-hour support for most any IBM product, you just have to pay a lot for that support.
For example, one of our mainframe controllers blew both power supplies. IBM flew a lear jet from Atlanta to Mississippi and had the part installed within 2 hours of us placing the service call.
Steven V>
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1)
...if anyone's getting inspired by this...
...I'm thinking any company like that will probably be immediately and consistently assaulted by "the enemy."
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1)
For high-performance servers maybe, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)
For high-performance, specialized servers maybe, but you can get commercial-off-the-shelf support for x86 machines from just about anyone. As for the OS, I think RedHat has the Linux support market covered, enough at least to get IBM's attention.
So the gov't may not have ideas of replacing EVERY machine with opensource, but I don't see much of a barrier with replacing low-traffic servers, databases and desktop machines (negating the obvious MS Office file format issues). The support is already there.
Re:For high-performance servers maybe, but ... (Score:2)
It'll work for any problem that's clearly an OS or clearly a hardware issue (or, by extension, clearly a userland-software issue), but it's not going to help when the problem's unclear. You'll get the A: It's B's fault, B: It's A's fault situation. If everything falls under A's remit, the problem goes away. It might be an OS problem, it might be a hardware problem, it might be a software problem, but in any event, it's A's problem to solve.
They want support, but don't want to pay for it. (Score:2)
Any open source packages we install and deploy for people (Linux/Apache servers, mail servers, etc) we have 24/7 service available. You want someone to call at 3 in the morning if your machine goes down? We offer that - you can get a real callback at 3am within 10 minutes from us if they wanna pay for it. We've done it for other clients running multimillion dollar ordering systems. Most clients just don't want to pay for that.
Perhaps the government would, but I don't think it's all just about support. "Support" is somewhat a convenient buzzword to dismiss open source stuff. MOST people play up the price angle when pitching open source. But if the client needs to pay for round the clock support for something, why not just use the proprietary stuff in the first place?
I'm not dismissing this - it's a real issue that still needs to be addressed. But as someone whose company offers round the clock support on everything we install (and some things we don't) I can tell you when you actually OFFER it, they often don't buy.
Not charging enough (Score:1)
Government funding is really wierd about maintenance too. Budgets can be really tight, and it is impossible to come up with $10K for a new box, but when it comes time to purchase maintenance they can shell out $50K without blinking every stinking year.
Other people have mentioned it already, but open source would do much better if more companies would make a big deal about their support services, and focus on that. Government people really only care about one thing when they are deciding on what software and hardware to use, who they can blame when something breaks. That is why IBM, Microsoft, Oracle, Dell, HP, CISCO and so on have such a grasp on the government market. The old saying "You don't get fired for buying IBM" is as true today as it was in 1985.
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:1)
Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again (Score:2)
Hmmm. Sounds like RedHat and IBM to me.
Not a problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, that company goes by the initials I-B-M.
Given IBM's heavy investment in Linux and their reputation for quick service for their biggest customers, if you have a roomful of IBM made server machines running Linux having problems an IBM technician should be on-call for service within a few hours to fix that problem.
After all, IBM wants to make Linux available on all their big iron platforms, so this could mean that IBM could end up being the larger supplier of Linux-based products and services in the world within a few years.
Public money should equal public code. (Score:1, Insightful)
Anything? (Score:1)
Corporations pay taxes too....
Corporations pay taxes too, they have rights ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Corporations pay taxes too....
Absolutely. I realize some readers are warming up the flamethrowers and are about to bitch and moan about some aberrations where large companies have paid nothing (in income tax, there are other taxes) but please consider the typical case not exception. I've worked for small companies for the most part and they have paid a lot in taxes.
The majority of companies out there are as deserving as individuals. They are run by decent and fair people, they pay taxes, they deserve a fair share like you.
I.e. BSD'ish license not GPL'ish would be more fair.
Human Resources (Score:4, Interesting)
This is just one scenario that I have seen played out in the government (or government sponsored) institutions that I've worked at.
OSSI mailing list (Score:5, Informative)
subscribe:
opengovtprojects mailing list [oss-institute.org]
or email:
opengovtprojects-request@oss-institute.org [mailto] with the word subscribe as the subject
Gov't Contracts (Score:1, Offtopic)
I realize that this is The Way Things Work, but is it right? or is it merely the propogation of a sucessful strategy?
Myself, I'm not sure that the way to legitmize Linux in gov't is to politic it in - 'bidness' aside. Getting in front of the policital movers and shakers and presenting facts is one thing. Using that time to pork barrel your own certification company strikes me as distinctly another, regardless of whether or not this is the way things are done.
Cheers,
-- RLJ
What will prevent Linux from making it! (Score:3, Interesting)
The Linux we all know and love, the notion of free [beer/speech] Linux won't make it by itself, that's because the Political system responds to money and power. Linux won't cut it there... But pair Linux to some big biz with big bucks. and it might happen....
The political system only responds to those who have money. Think of it this way. You're a senator or congressman or pres/vp or state elected official. You need money to stay in your job - a job you really wanted, else you wouldn't have gone through the hassle to get in the first place. Now, to get money, you have to be a "good" investment. (An aside - these rules are more true for higher $ political races, and apply less and less as the job gets "smaller")
Now, Corp A or Very Rich Man B want to give you money - why? - because they want an investment vehicle. These "investors" will continue to invest only as long as you make a return for them. If they find someone who offers better returns, they'll invest elsewhere.
So, you only have so much time or influence. If you value your job, you'll maximize your return (campaign contributions) by maximizing the return on your biggest job security people (the people who donate the most money).
So in base, if you're not able to play with the big boys (big contributors) your chance of making a difference is very small. I would suggest that that only way you will, is if you are unopposed by a moneyied (sp) interest. If you are on the opposing side of an issue against a interest with money, and you don't have money, or nearly as much, just kiss it goodbye.
So, we have to pair Linux to IBM or others who will play the money political game, we can win. But that will probably end up changing Linux to some degree too.
It's sort of like a pact with the devil. I say go for it, and try to keep Linux true to its' ideals.
Cheers!
Against the Linux Cynix (Score:2, Interesting)
Critical Mass (Score:3, Interesting)
Steps like this are key to solving the Linux Equation. Clearly Linux is superior in every way to Windows (especially for the government) but without a critical mass it will never take over. Hopefully efforts like this (and the one in Germany) will push it past the critical mass stage and Linux will become The OS and not just another OS.
Whoa whoa whoa! (Score:2)
How do you figure that? Just because you said so? Linux is not superior in every way to Windows. It's better at some things, and not as good at others. Saying that it's superior in every way just makes it sound like you are talking out of your ass.
Re:Whoa whoa whoa! (Score:2)
Linux has inferior worms.
Why is it... (Score:1)
ick... I need to wash my hands...
How about eminent domain instead? (Score:3, Interesting)
The government should start buying things that have already been produced and put them in the public domain. And in the more egregious cases, it could use its power of eminent domain to buy the source whether the company wants to sell it or not.
-- where's that "-1 didn't read article" moderator choice when you need it?
Re:How about eminent domain instead? (Score:2)
For starters, they should buy Hancom Office and turn it loose unto the world.
Re:How about eminent domain instead? (Score:1)
Egads, are you a socialist or something? The government's power of eminent domain is already being abused far too much for the advantage of an elite few. Private property is a fundamental right. Government can not and should not run roughshod over it.
Re:How about eminent domain instead? (Score:2)
Hmm... I'm advocating the use of government wealth to fund public works projects. If you say that's socialist, I won't argue the point.
I agree that property shouldn't be run roughshod over, but there is a big difference between
Buying existing intellectual property with the consent of the owner is hardly "running roughshod" over property rights. Neither is forcing the sale of property that was obtained illegally or improperly. It sure beats taking that property with no compensation for the owner.
-- Just because there are shades of gray, it doesn't mean we can't tell black from white.
Re:How about eminent domain instead? (Score:2)
If it would significantly aid the world, why should MS's office format be opened? Government forced rail companies to standardize on track size (in cases where they hadn't already) and it's paid off incredibly, both for the people and for the once relectant companies.
Communist (Score:1)
Retard.
Government and the GPL? (Score:1)
Of course I wouldn't have a problem with the government using unmodified open-source packages like Linux, but the practicality of that is an argument for another day. :)
Re:Government and the GPL? (Score:2)
Infastructure (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Infastructure [sic] (Score:2)
Noooo! Governments are the last people you want maintaining a Linux distro. When the US Federal government defined a computing language, they came up with... ADA!
Let the government contribute patches which then compete for adoption - see the NSA Secure Linux patches for an example.
But you don't want government to control software development, because they'll get so tangled up in red tape, multi-year requirements definitions, bloated unwieldy specifications, empire building, incredibly inefficient coding and testing cycles, interagency turf wars, and cover-your-ass political posturing that they'll strangle the software but continue on inertia alone for decades before finally noticing that the systems are dead. Look at the FAA and the Air Traffic Control systems. Look at NASA and it's 5-10 year old "space-certified" hardware and software. Government can't hack big software worth shit, and they should know it by now. Don't even suggest it.
The point of using "public" (open source, or "free as in libre") software in government is that the public writes it and _gives_ it to the government "free as in beer" so the public doesn't then have to pay taxes for the government to license closed, proprietary software.
To think that everything "public" must be done by the government is a classically absurd conclusion of inverted Hegelian-Marxist socialist reasoning that assigns all powers to the State leaving The People (you know, us individuals, citizens, you and me) utterly powerless in the final reckoning.
I could go on, but I won't.
The fed and free software (Score:5, Interesting)
This conference was not announced for until the Friday before, and yet was fairly well attended, for reasons that became appearent fairly appearent even by the OPEN remarks made by the by some.
To understand the context of those remarks, one must understand I have had some experiance in federal contracting in the past. Occasionally federal employees would complain about certain vendors entirely in private, and certainly some vendors achieved some level of dislike and disgust in the past, particularly telecomm vendors.
However, never before had I been in a room with federal employees showing such open and complete contempt for a given vendor. The reason became clear when one of them spoke openly of how reps of this particular vendor had targetted her and the process and methods used to harrass her and other federal employees who would consider to openly choose other products. That this would happen in front of outsiders and also in front of some senior policy people, was a complete shock to me.
To have one such person in any completely random meeting of federal employees that this might happen to would be surprising. To have this same circumstances explained to me by others, some later in private, and some in other venues since that I had known in the past because I became curious and called some people I used to know, is statistically mind boggling.
The vendor in question would use a very simple method of intimidation to those that it's reps identified. The next time they would speak to a given person they would make it clear they are watching them and are reporting any inappropriate activity to their superior, the threat implied and clear. They would state specific complaints, whether valid or not, and then that employee would find his/her manager asking about these same things a few weeks later.
Never in all my years dealing with federal employees had I ever before, personally, or even second hand, heard of ANY vendor doing anything like this, let alone on the scale and scope required for people from random agencies to have much the same story to tell. To say I was and still am very angry is an understatement.
Out of this it was clear also a grave miscalculation has occured. It became clear that for every person so harrassed, perhaps 10 others would become aware it happened, and all 11 would become rightly angry. There is a groundswell of support for free software in the fed, and really for ANY other software, and this vendor has created it!
Other things came out of this conference that were also interesting. Certainly there are some who "get" free software, who understands what it means and could do for them, who would prefer it. Certainly it was also true that there were others who would do anything to never have to purchase, install, or deploy any product ever made by such a vendor ever again. I would love to talk more about each these things, and particularly about those who understood free software.
The reaction of the more senior level agency people was most ammusing of all. For years these people had "friends" who would try to help them with their it needs. These vendor "friends" were of course paid to be such a "friend" to a key agency person, what some might call a "buddy" in the parlance of that particular vendor. For years, they would tell these people free software was not usable, would describe editing and word processing as or in terms of emacs and vi, etc.
To show these people gnome, kde, abiWord, open office, etc, this was very much an eye opening experiance for many of these senior agency people.
Clearly those that would be the enemies of free (and open source) software depend on ignore and terror to sell their products. Clearly we must respond with education, enlightenment, and make it clear they alone are the terrorists.
David
What's In It For Them!! (Score:1)
/. is a huge community of people that need to realize that complaining won't do anything, we have to appeal to the needs/wants of the general public.
What needs to be done is to create a PR campaign to combat M$'s to show them how they benefit from voting this into place.
IMO the general layman never hears how he would be better served by voting into policy that Open Source be mandatory were it does not conflict with national security.
-We need to let them know how much using proprietary software costs them every year.
-We need to let them know that Open Source code means that everyone has access to the software they need, FOR FREE.
Maybe we should use envy to accomplish this:
-Bill Gates lives a life of luxury by gouging you.
The important thing is that we make it easy for the public to take action AND that the public realize how they benefit.
I don't know the answers, yet
We are our own best hope!
This was actually my suggestion for the MS Suit (Score:1)
This would encourage the federal government to seek free alternatives, while punishing a monopolist. Linux would become more possible as such a HUGE amount of people would then have to start using rtf or somesuch portable format for daily commerce with the government, the biggest employer in the US. From what I understand, when the government switched from Word Perfect Format to Doc Files, MS's market share skyrocketed. All the contractors, and the people the contractors bought from switched with the government.
Picking Microsoft's Pockets (Score:3, Interesting)
What if I told you you could walk right into Microsoft's head offices and take (at least) $500 out of their coffers for every single user installed in our public service sector? You can take that money right out of chariman Bill's pocket, and re-invest it in education, more computers, and more jobs in your home state. Want to know how? Here it is.
Replace Microsoft products with open source. That's it. There are usable replacements for most if not all desktop software that your employees are using, and they are all available for free. 95% of your users just use Windows and Office, but these packages can be replaced for 0 dollars on a Linux box that costs less and will run more reliably; for free!
Your only costs are training your existing Windows administrators to run Linux. This will cost less than the cost of the Windows software upgrades that Microsoft REQUIRES you to pay for under their current licensing scheme. You end up with better trained and more valuable administrators, for less money.
On the server side (all those pretty web pages, databases, and management systems), Linux software tends to be more reliable than it's Windows couterparts, and is also free. If you really insist on paying for your database software, Oracle runs on Linux too! Otherwise, same argument as for the desktop users. Better qualified admins for less money.
Let's not forget that you are employing teachers in your home state to train these new admins. The money all stays home. Software upgrades are free, so your future costs per year drop, allowing you to buy new computers more often, and keep your employees happy with new equipment. Buy those computers in your home state, your are talking about investing more money back into your own backyard. This is a win-win situation for your taxpayers, and your employees.
Where's the checkbooks?
In Education (Score:3, Insightful)
Public Schools (the K-12 system), would really bennefit from OpenSource / Linux:
- less burden to administer,
- unprivilieged users,
- virus-free systems
- real multiuser environment
- powerfull computer tools, from Kdevelop and Kylix to Gimp and OpenOffice
- extended life for hardware
- remote installation of programs
- close-to-zero costs of software licenses.
Just think about it.
From a SysAdmin point of view: no more "... I deleted C:/Windows...", nor "...and Code Purple has destroyed my test scores.." nor "...now I must install the latest IExplorer patch to all of the PCs, one by one...". If you are a SysAdmin, you know what I mean.
From an economic point of view, no more "... and this letter from the BSA asks us to produce the licenses for all the installed software or else..." nor "...and for this new computer that we got, we need to buy a different version of Office, that is, Office XP. And OfficeXP is incompatible with our pool of Office97 around..." nor "...we need to upgrade 20 computers because Windows95 is no longer supported..." nor "...We need a different Antivirus license that costs this much more...".
My 2 cents.
Re:In Education (Score:2)
Re:In Education (Score:2)
So, my list wasn't enough?
I thought that from a SysAdmin position, as I said in my previos post, Linux makes more sense to be deployed than any Windows OS. I'm not quite sure about MacOS X. But, in general, MacOS X is more a desktop OS than a network OS.
I know that MacOS X is based on *BSD. But:
Can you run now Kdevelop, Quanta+, Gimp, Glade, OpenOffice... on MacOS X ?
Can you update all the Macs in your network as easy as it is with "up2date in a box" (RedHat), "urpmi --autoselect" (Mandrake) or "apt-get --upgrade" (Debian) ?
Can you mimmic with MacOS X the following OSs: Windows9x/2000/XP , Solaris , MacOS 8.x/9.x/X ?
You can do it with Linux + KDE + Styles/Look'n'Feel. You can make a Linux look and act as any of those OSes.
Can you run MacOS X on PowerPCs and Intel PCs hardware alike? And then, you have WineX and Basilisk and MacOnLinux.
I think that Linux has some real use. If you already have bought all those MacOS X and many licenses for MacOS products, then it will be silly to change and dump all the investment in software.
But, if you hadn't made the purchases, maybe you could have considered Linux.
I do not mean that Linux is the best. I just mean that Linux is up to the job to be there, and that Linux has attractive skills for networked desktops.
My 2 cents.
Not in Georgia (Score:3, Interesting)
According to this guy, at least, here in Georgia the government put a lot of emphasis on "non-technical" things as "percentage of minority employees," "vendor's land holdings" when awarding contracts to companies. I imagine it is the same in other states that have strong histories of racial discrimination. Anyway, when a public official finds out that for example, Linux is 1) not owned by any company whose assets and employee demographics can be investigated, and 2) doesn't even require spending government money, and thus is of no use in buying votes, a push for Linux probably won't get very far.
Re:Not in Georgia (Score:2)
Now have another company enter a competing bid based on proprietary software, most or all of which is purchased (licensed) from white-owned out-of-state companies.
It doesn't take much of a lobbyist to make a case for keeping the money local and supporting the minority-owned business.
- Robin
Best Bit (Score:3, Interesting)
Very good point. How many techies do you know that could name a single starting player on Ole Miss or even recognize a good bottle of bourbon? There is a tremendous amount of money and power in the "good old boy" network, and your typical kernel hacker or BSD zealot is the anithesis of the good old boy image. This is exactly the sort of thing we need to see much more if we actually want to change the world, as opposed to talking about changing the world.
Already happening where I'm at (Score:4, Interesting)
We're really starting to embrace Linux now. I (and several others in the development shop) have been trying to get it in the door for five years or so. Back then, we would get the standard run-around from the government: it's unproven, it's unsafe, it's unsupported, etc. They gradually began to cave in, however, as commercial interest in Linux increased and as it became deployed in more and more capacities. They realized that many of their objections were either being addressed or were ill-founded to begin with. Now, we've got several projects using Linux boxes.
Part of our long-term strategy for my project (a processing system that generates user products from raw data acquired from various spacecraft) is to move off of our current platform and migrate to Linux or something similar. We are currently based on Silicon Graphics (sorry, SGI) Origin 2000s running IRIX. This was not a bad choice at the time that the project was initiated, because we really do need number-crunching power. However, in the time since then, the power of PC-based machines has risen to the point where an Intel/AMD CPU can easily outperform a MIPS processor. We have doubts about the long-term stability of SGI; furthermore, we use Oracle to house processing and production data, and Oracle support for IRIX is rapidly going the way of the dodo.
I anticipate that within a couple of years we will have migrated the system (and others like it) to Linux clusters. We won't be stuck paying exorbitant maintenance fees to SGI (or some other vendor) for the specialized hardware, and we'll be getting a lot more bang for the buck. A lot of this is coming about as a result of a shift in government philosophy; these days, the government is more content to let contractors do the job the way they want to do it. And that is how it should be; the government should be in the position to manage at the high-level and measure performance, but they should not be dictating technical details and micromanaging how the work is actually done.
Money is the driving factor. (Score:2)
(like, they need a web browser, simple email, and a word processor).
If they have a big budget however.. it doesn't mtatter. If they are using custom software, it doesn't matter. Usually, the overall costs of the system are not drastically reduced by using linux.
Carpe Diem? (Score:2)
: the enjoyment of the pleasures of the moment without concern for the future
That's not exactly the phrase I'd choose...
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:5, Insightful)
"but it seems in this country that the people who end up working for the government are the ones who couldn't cut it in the private sector, especially in the IT field"
Uhm, how bout those guys that pretty much invented the architecture of the net as we know it today?
There are TONS of highly skilled people working in the government, you just never hear about them. And, believe it or not, when the government gets its hand on a genius IT guru, he or she is VERY WELL compensated, since the government knows they can go else where at any given time.
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:1)
Duh (Score:2)
The US government may have paid for the internet, but they probably didn't even notice until they tried to regulate it.
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:4, Insightful)
_I_ work for state government, I'm a pretty bright bulb, and choose to do so for less pay because I LIKE the environment. I LIKE making change in a large governmental system, and I LIKE having a stable paycheck with a good retirement.
Yeah, there's a bunch of F*ck-ups in the Public sector, but they're just as prevalent in the Private Sector.
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't work for Gvmt, and don't think I ever will... I compare this to say, Verizon or Qwest. The techs/trench people are mostly pretty great. The problems lies at the top of the food chain. If we fixed [read ELIMINATE] the stupid PHB's at the top, the organization would run lots better.
Same with Gvmt. Politics is a corrupt game. The people who ultimately make the decisions, are in turn impacted by getting elected, and generating campaign contributions. That makes for bad legislation, and general apathey for those below, as they see the mess generated.
I think Gvmt has a purpose, and an important one. I just with the political system above the Gvmt was more representative and responsive to the average joe. The one without lots of dough to give!
Cheers!
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:1)
Not necessarily better, but, I think, potentially so.
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, the government agencies (specifically, the "Alphabet Soup" agencies - you know who I mean) get some of the best and brightest specifically because they've got some of most exciting code to work on. Where else could you write code that deploys missiles, cracks encryption, and spies on people and not get arrested? If you're looking for the guys with the fun toys, that's who you wanna sign on with.
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:2)
Gosh, maybe we should have an advocacy program for open source then, just like it talks about in the article.
-- Where is that "-1 didn't read article" moderator choice when you need it?
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:1)
I agree with you. The best and the brightest would demand the most money for their time (that's part of being considered "the brightest.") Working for the government doesn't pay nearly as well as the private sector does. I was thinking about taking a coding position at a state univerisity here in CA but they couldn't compete with the private companies for my time.
Since it's public money if I want to alter, change, read, whatever with code developed for the government I should be able to.
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:3, Interesting)
Spoken like a true RandDroid.
Your statement only makes sense if you assume that everyone worships money...it's simply not true. Some people go into government because, for one reason or another, they are fascinated with doing something that services or affects the public at large. By your logic, no one should be interested in entrepreneurialship (sp?) or working for small businesses either, because they can get earn more as a cog in a giant, unthinking machine.
Time to lose some more karma (Score:2)
What!? Ayn Rand == satan!
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:1)
When I was there(and it's undoubtedly improved), they had a serious lack of competent sys admins for congressional offices. The main problems were:
1. Many Congressional offices didn't see tech as a priority and have a dedicated sys admin position. Those offices had the receptionist maintain the network. You can imagine the results.
2. The pay is crap compared to the private sector. Of course, no one goes into gov't for the money... but...
3. Competent computer people who are also interested in and have the patience for politics are few and far between.
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:3, Insightful)
I'll assume that you've never worked in a government IT shop; it would explain much of what you've typed. If you had, you'd know that many states index their pay for IT job classes to keep the people they want to keep; for certain job classes, I know that my ex-coworkers at the State of Ohio are making more than my private sector coworkers here. (Not true for me of course... like Al Pacino said in The Devils' Advocate: "Negotiate? Always!") And of course, fat benefits and real paid vacation, that you can actually *take* if you want to.
You'd also know that many government agencies utilize the latest tech to do what they need to do, especially in geological and engineering capacities. They also work, where possible, with local universities for exchange and cost-sharing of such tech. Cost-sharing and cost cutting is the prime limitation to what governments can do as far as IT goes; you'd probably be appalled to know what little hardware and software is behind the curtain, making everything run.
I could go on, but I suspect this FP troll will already have more than its share of replies.
Re:Of course the government should use open source (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, you've never worked an IT job in the gov't then. I've worked as a contractor at several gov't sites, and all of them had top notch IT guys. True, there were a lot of morons, but I didn't feel the percentages were any different from the private sector jobs I've worked. And once you got past the entry level positions, almost all the IT people at the gov't sites I've worked were knowledgeable. Now the management over the IT folks has been abysmal at every gov't site I've worked, but most of the IT people have been smart enough to know that and just work on getting the job done without getting the bosses in trouble. That way, the boss leaves the IT people alone, and the IT people get to surf pr0n all day after the job is done.
And I must say, some of the coolest work I've gotten to do has been done at gov't sites (IDS and vulnerability testing stuff comes to mind).
RagManX
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Amazing (Score:1)
While you may choose to base your personal worth on how much money you make, not everyone in the world feels the same way. For example, people who choose to become researchers and scientists don't go into those fields to become the next mega millionaires. Different people are motivated by different things. For some, it's job satisfaction and having a good stable working environment. For others, it's simply the never-ending quest for money. You should be thankful that not everyone is motivated by money, otherwise a lot of cool inventions and toys would either not exist today or would have taken a lot longer to come into being. Some of you may say that "not being motivated by money" is a cop out, and that's fine. It's your own fault you have such a narrow view of the world.
As far as dumb IT people, it helps to know what you're talking about
Re:horrible (Score:1)
Re:Next post! (Score:1)