Brazil Mandates Shift to Free Software 503
truthsearch writes "LinuxToday is reporting news and a response about Brazil making Open Source mandatory for 80% of all computers in state institutions and businesses, setting up a 'Chamber for the Implementation of Software Libre.'" This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
Mr. Gates? (Score:5, Funny)
Your luggage is ready, sir.
Re:Mr. Gates? (Score:5, Informative)
During the campaign some IT newspaper asked the candidates what they would do for the software industry. It went something like this:
José Serra's answer:
"We must support the software industry, make it stronger so it can generate jobs for our citizens, and increases export (export? Sell something to other country)."
Pretty standard, IMHO. This anwer works not only for the software industry, but for any other else.
Lula's answer:
"We should support free software, not only because it's cheaper, but because our country needs a larger tech base, more computer and people that knows how to use it".
And Lula won the dispute. Especifically, when asked about the software industry, he cited free solutions.
So it's not a matter of what Bill Gates think, it's already happening. Cool, isn't?
Ps: I know you made a joke I am just trying to make the topic broader and explain some of the things that are happening.
Whoa (Score:3, Funny)
Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And it's really no different than, say, if you want to sell vehicles to a government agency. It's routine for such buyers to insist on full shop manuals with every sale, so that the guys in their fleet shop can maintain them. Hardly any government agency anywhere takes their cars to the dealer for maintenance. (Well, actually, some do, but usually only if the dealer gives them a deal comparable with doing it themselves.)
How is it that software vendors think they can get away with keeping the inner workings of their products secret, when this is hardly done with any other products except for cheap disposables?
So, bravo for the Brazilian government. They're finally wising up. No government with a grain of sense would buy software whose inner workings are unknowable and unfixable. Especially not from a big foreign-owned company that doesn't have your interests at heart. And that's what we're really talking about here.
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, there is a quote explaining that "our main concern is the security and the trust of our citizens". This makes it clear that the intent of the Brazilians is not just to save money (though they like that idea, too), but rather to have
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:3, Insightful)
read some of the comments made about stanco's comment, then you will understand
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think government should work as any corporation an standardize on something that cut costs that are ultimatelly subsided by us (brazilian taxpayers). The idea to standardize on free software, is a win-win solution. If we let individuals choose, they would prefer to use M$ office instead of OpenOffice just because theyÂre lazy and donÂt want any change.
But to move all apps to free software wonÂt be as easy as change clerical workers desktop computers.
I know that some agencies like Federal Revenue and Customs and Social Securuty have very large and complex systems that depend on M$ and that can not be changed without hurdle. If the government really intends it will need to change the mindset of many agencies and despite of all technical persons goodwill, it would be a daughting task.
HereÂs a link to brazilian e-governement projects. [google.com]
Google translation
Brazil is a large poor country and should uses all itÂs resources in favor of people who needs education, a good health care system and much more. Buyng M$ licenses is a luxury we canÂt afford..
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Eu4ria
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:2)
Also it's not a total change, some software can be propiertary (20%) and i believe in this economical context open source software is the best solution in more than 80% of the cases. With the aditional openness benefit of knowing what the hell your software is doing with your data, of course.
Who said that??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Free Software stands for SHARING SOURCE CODE. In fact, going by the GPL, you dont even get a choice about sharing it either.
So stop promulgating that stupid sentiment. I for one have no problem with mandatory open source.
So what if you lose the choice to be a slave, you still have all the choices that matter.
Re:Who said that??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Who said that??? (Score:3, Interesting)
>>So what if you lose the choice to be a slave, you >>still have all the choices that matter.
>What the fuck does that have to do with software licenses?
Everything.
Patent's, Copyright, et. al. are tools of mental slavery. Noone can create in a cultural vacuum. Taking things out of the public domain is, to borrow their term, "stealing" from society.
All ideas are derivative ideas. Once we realize this, then we realize that copyrights and patents are immoral, and a detriment to progress in ar
Re:Who said that??? (Score:3, Insightful)
So if Microsoft spends years on the next version of Windows, they should be obligated to release it for free with code to the entire world, profits be damned? Or if Disney creates a movie, and then releases it on DVD, it's immoral for them to copyright it because they're stealing from society? Or if a pharmaceutical comp
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:2, Insightful)
But this is the government we're talking about. The government has no "freedom" or "choice." It has only the privileges the people choose to give it. If the people want to require that their head of state wear a pink tu-tu while conducting all official government business, they have every right to do so. In fact restricting the actions of the government is precisely how we guarantee freedom for the people.
Now I understand your position and I could go either way. Personally I feel a mandate of open st
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:5, Insightful)
With Free (Livre) Software a governmant will have true soverneity over what it's computers do (well, that may need some support --> business model here?).
If it doesn't like the way some things are being done, it can always be done by others. With non-free software, all who can really do anything at all are the owneres, so they get to "tell to" the government what it can (or can't) do with its computers.
I'm sorry, but this _is_ a choice a government can do that is somewhat important. It will get to choose who can give it support. It'll get it control over what the software is doing, and talking about plenty software choices, well... the FUD some idiots spread around is that there's too much Free Software programs for you to choose... so there you go. You can choose the best Free tool for the job. Freedom is what the government is mandating for itself by choosing to use only Free Software. Why are you against it? Do you rather your government can't tell you wether some software company has secret access to your records?
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:4, Interesting)
Furthermore, the first baker has shown many other expert bakers on similar tours, and they were all impressed. You have no particular reason to trust any of them, but a conspiracy on that scale is quite hard to believe. Also, the tours are open to anyone -- with no check on how much baking the guest knows or how he may be disposed toward the baker.
Now if you add in (special to Brazil's case) that the second baker is a member of a rival clan (USA) which has a history of underhanded dealings (Chile, Nicaragua, Columbia), you might not be willing to eat the second bakers bread after all!
In summary, the fact that you have checked something is best, but the fact that you can check it counts for a lot.
Not everything Re:Mandatory defies the nature of (Score:2)
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Your view leads to chaos, not choice.
History? (Score:5, Insightful)
From a historical perspective, this news on Brazil is quite interesting. They have had one of the most meddlesome governments in IT. I was working with several Brazilians in the 80s. At the time, Brazil wanted to build up its computer manufacturing and had strict import laws controlling the importation of computers and computer programs. The hope was that by creating an isolated market, they would develop a flourishing IT industry. My friends, of course, thought the laws were extremely troublesome and oppressive, and were trying to find a way out of Brazil. They told stories of how most of Brazil's IT infrastructure was running on 10 year old software because companies couldn't import the new software. I was hoping the acticle would have more info on the history of Brazil's attempts to legislate its IT industry.
Anyway, mandating the use of OSS fits well within the social and political objectives of the movement. OSS does not stand for "choice." OSS stands for "open development." These are different ideas. In many regards OSS is in stark opposition to the notion of ownership of property. All the brouhaha about copyrights and patents is an attempt to create some sort of ownership to intellectual development; so that it would fit in a free market.
When the code is publicly developed, there is no longer any "ownership" of ideas or code. It is all a communal resource. Hence, the philosophies of ownership that were advanced by Smith, Locke and others are no longer applicable.
As for choice, for OSS to really excel it cannot allow companies to choose that this piece of software is open and this piece is closed. The goal of the GPL is to make all the software code "open." Otherwise the greed of software developers would be to take from the community without giving back. Government mandates simply add the power to the state to enforce the idea of open development.
OSS pretty much started as a reaction to the Microsoft monopoly. Since monopolies limit choice, I can see how people in the initial step of the revolution equated open with free; However, I suspect that it will be anti-US and nationalistic attitudes of countries like Brazil that will bring the OSS revolution to fruition. The fact that the revolution is different then what people thought the revolution was about is par for the course.
Re:History? (Score:5, Insightful)
I take issue with that. No one sane talks about forcing closed source companies to open their source. It isn't a communist dream of wealth redistribution, it's a recognition that software and data have very little economic value by themselves, that once software is written, it becomes an infinite resource that everyone can share.
As a Libertarian and a supporter of free software, I see no fundamental conflict between OSS and property rights, any more than I see a fundamental conflict between grocery stores and charity food banks.
Re:History? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's nothing but FUD and a strawman argument.
"They" are not the least be opposed to ownership of property. Their "notion" is that information does not equal physical objects. Information is not property. And that is not even in conflict with the "notion" of patents and copyrights. Just because patents and copyrights are not property does not mean they are not valid. It just means there is a huge
It´s all about savaing money (Score:3, Informative)
ItÂs not an anti-US action, it is all about trying to have the most affordable solution. Brazil is a poor country and we are currently cutting costs everywere. ItÂs better doing this by saving money with M$ licenses than saving money with education and health care.
Brazil is also a large country with population about 180,000,000 distributed over an area 8
Re:Mandatory defies the nature of open source.... (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right, there will be someone to whom it is cheaper to emulate a 95 year old machine than to reverse engineer the file format and creating new software. If it ain't broke... But in the context of copyright when I say "economic value" I mean "economic value to the copyright holders."
In 5 years they are unlikely to be making money from this version
No such thing as 'best tool' (Score:5, Insightful)
If, on the other hand, you are interested in making a change and making people aware of the choice out there, then yes it probably needs to be mandated - what the Government is saying is that it is more important that we have control over our software than features, necessarily. That's 'best tool', but more of a long-term view..
Re:No such thing as 'best tool' (Score:2)
Re:No such thing as 'best tool' (Score:4, Interesting)
In my country (.SE), for the sake of democrasy, government functions, documents and decissions are, when not specifically mandated by national security, required to be available to the public for review.
The same should hold true for the software functions used in the government, if they affect the descissions or the order in which they are made, and must in all cases hold true for the fileformats used.
Everything else would not be democratic.
Re:No such thing as 'best tool' (Score:5, Insightful)
With free software - that the customer can change it as they se fit - they can spend money to create the missing functionality they can get thus gaet that extra 10% to get a 100% perfekt application.
Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
What, are you new around here or something?
Budget crunches. (Score:5, Insightful)
Brazil's not exactly overflowing with cash at the moment. A tool that does 90% of the job for free is better than a tool that does 100% of the job but that you can't afford to purchase.
Re:Budget crunches. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have yet to see a tool that does 100% of what a person needs. Even if you are paying for the software development, it never works just right. In the end, you wind up changing your process to match what the tool can provide.
That being said, even if the split were 60% to 80%, it could easily justify the OSS solution. After all, how many people use more that 30% of the capabilities of MS Office?
$, once again (Score:2)
Which I can totally understand. In this case, folks, it's not about philosophy, it's about economics. The Brazilian government shouldn't have to wreck its budget because some of its members are complacent enough to stay with Microsoft forever.
The one thing I'm curious about (not morbidly curious, just curious) is how much the consulting and other migration costs are going to add up before the transitio
Even if they add up to a lot (Score:3, Insightful)
Not jsut Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Not just Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the economy, stupid! (Score:2, Informative)
I don't think so. I think the main thing here is that stuff needs to be cheap (Brazil's a poor country), and has to be able to do the job - not necessaraly in the best way possible. FS is definetly free money-wise, and because techs can get the source too, any specific needs Brazil might have can cheaply be added. Also, don't forget, the sooner the mass of the people use op
Seems like a good balance (Score:5, Insightful)
I think an 80% mandation (is that even a word?) seems fair. You leave 20% left over for missions-critical applications (military and whatnot; remember, Brazil isn't like the US - they don't spend hundreds of billions on military, and therefore, I doubt their military computer systems make up even 10% of their infrastructure), on which you can chose software based on the best choice out there. But the remaining 80%, which represents mostly desktop applications for clerks and whatnot, will be running on OSS - this is good, because it prevents government from getting locked into restrictive licencing that usually comes with desktop production software, saves money, and encurages development of open software/standards.
I think they've met a good balance here, and I congradulate them.
Re:Seems like a good balance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Seems like a good balance (Score:3, Interesting)
I know it's nitpicking, but I would take issue with this comment. Of course Brazil doesn't spend "hundreds of billions" on military - they don't HAVE hundreds of billions to spend (or the capability to generate that income by issuing bonds and expanding their debt). However, Brazil has in the very recent past actually spent more on
Re:Seems like a good balance (Score:5, Interesting)
General: budget / population = military spending per capita
US: $399.1e9 / 2.8e8 = $1425
Brazil: 10.5e9 / 1.8e8 = $58
(Israel: 9.4e9 / 6e6 = $1566)
Now thats what we call perspective.
Population numbers are gathered from the cia world factbook avaiable at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/
And in other news... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:And in other news... (Score:2)
Probably not... (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll be interesting to see if they can leverage access to source and freely redistributable product into a long term cost reduction strategy. Short term the win is pretty clear. Long term, open source has some way to go in maintenance cost reduction, vis. Solaris vs. RedHat and Solaris vs. Win2k
Mandatory (Score:4, Interesting)
"It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job"
That's very true, but only when you don't have mega-corporations and monopolies leveraging assets other than software (donating computer hardware, donating to social programs, etc).
While I personally believe in "the best tool for the job", governments are far more vulnerable to outside pressure than businesses.
Re:Mandatory (Score:3, Informative)
In theory Brazil could continue to use Oracle, Corel, or any other Non-OSS they so chose, assuming they did so on a Linux platform.
This isn't a business philosophy decision, or even a broad software purcha
Just As Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Who do YOU think owns UNIX? [linux-universe.com]
Re:Just As Wrong (Score:2)
It is common for companies and governments to have rules about which terms they accept in contracts. Why should software contracts be different?
Re:Just As Wrong (Score:2)
As I said, just my opinion.
--
FSF's Lawyer Speaks Out On SCO [linux-universe.com]
Re:Just As Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
No, you don't.
"Better" is a subjective term.
Brazil looked at their requirements (open access to data and code - Brazil mandated that since all government data must be accessible by the populace, so must the tools to access it, as they can't be locked into a situation where the vendor controls the data.) Since (by definition) closed source doesn't meet their requirements, it cannot be "better".
Again, MS is perfectly able to sell software to Brazil - they
Mandating free software is great... (Score:5, Insightful)
Given that a countries primary mandate is social, it makes a great deal of sense to mandate free software, for the good of the country, unless you happen to be the country that is the home of Microsoft (and even then that's debatable - MS is perfectly happy to outsource programming jobs to wherever is cheapest).
The best tool for the job.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly any software tool could be created using open source. After a few years of such creation all the best tools would be open source and Brazil will no longer be reliant any anyone but themselves. Sounds like a pretty good goal to me.
Easy solution for Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
Implied :-) for those who forgot about all the "Open-this" and "Open-that" software being tossed about in the early-to-mid-90's that really had nothing open about it at all.
Re:Easy solution for Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)
The "Open" implied an open standard, meaning that even though the source wasn't necessarily available, the spec was, so that anyone could write an app that interoperated with your product. Thus OpenVMS was simply VMS with POSIX compliance- developers could expect it to behave in certain ways. I guess this was largely to reduce fragmentation among OSes.
In contrast, Windo
80%? (Score:2)
Portuguese, please (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Portuguese, please (Score:4, Informative)
This is not to say that proprietary software is banned in the government. The policy will shift to allow companies that use free software solutions partipate in public concurrences. And every software used by the government, regardless of its platform, should be interoperable. No government website may carry a tag "best viewed with browser x or Y". The software developed by the brazilian IRS, that today is avaliable only for Windows, will have a Linux port. Sergio Amadeu told me this policy can be summarized in one sentence: "the brazilian government will not force anyone to use proprietary or free software". That is 100% on the spirit of free software and open source.
Nowadays the use of Windows is predominant in the brazilian government, but that will change. Many governments [slashdot.org] are considering [com.com] this direction [oreillynet.com], and Brazil is just another case. The government is not anti-Microsoft, is just considering a better option for the country.
As a coincidence, I am a brasilian journalist and I have wrote a story about it. On monday you can check it out in www.jb.com.br/internet [jb.com.br] (those that don't speak portuguese will have to use Babel Fish).
News flash... (Score:2)
Mandatory (Score:3, Insightful)
Free versus the two hundred some odd dollars for windows could save them a lot.
Good news for all (Score:3, Funny)
The best tool for the job... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The best tool for the job... (Score:2)
Re:The best tool for the job... (Score:3)
If it was proprietary software you'd have to reverse engineer that format, then write both halves of the translator. Much more work.
And sure, people are still using Oracle 6 years later. But just try to use Windows XP years later, Microsoft won't be helping you active it, but you can bet they'll still be suing anyone who write a crack for it. And they'
misleading title? (Score:3, Insightful)
It only seems like they are mandating it because of the story title, even in the babelfish translation of the spanish original article title they're only 'migrating.'
I was wondering why they'd try to force open source software on anybody, isn't that against morals and such?
Is Open Source like Generic Drugs? (Score:2, Insightful)
They won because a state is still more powerful than any corporation. Imagine what would happen if SCO won the case against Linux, while Brazil would have most of the governmental IT run by Linux. Would the surrender to the power of SCO? I doubt it. So every such case is beneficial to the stability of Open Source commun
Going too far? No... (Score:2)
I'd say Linux/Open Source (don't forget BSD;) is the best tool 80% of the time (or more) though.
Brazil might be willing to settle for a 'good enough' solution, while saving MILLIONS of dollars. Those savings really add up, year after year. Everyone touts the advantages of OSS for business, why not apply it t
Not Going Too Far (Score:5, Insightful)
In the transition to a fully open source office, the initial training expense is high (not because Windows is easier, but because everyone already knows how to use it). After the initial expense, and assuming a large installed base (to facilitate peer support), the cost savings are enormous. Government offices are the perfect places to take advantage of these facts - no quarterly stockholder reports to worry about means the initial expense won't affect anyone's bonus, and the massive user base makes peer support extremely cost effective.
Wholly aside from the cost efficiency aspect is the open government and independence issue. As things stand, Brazil is dependent on Microsoft, and runs on software to which Brazil's citizens have no access. This is hardly an appropriate position for democracy to find itself in.
actually it's a good business model (Score:4, Insightful)
The "right tool for the job" is the correct assessment, but you must needs take all the variables into account when considering your selection. Example, I can dig out a small gadren spot to make a new flower bed, I could lease a trackhoe, by golly that thing is very efficient in digging out the bed, and it's sure a tool, but all things considered the better tool would be me, the garden sysadmin and my shovel I own and don't have to rent.
I don't think the brazilians are stupid, they can see the advantages in cost, long term viability, having the freedom to develop custom in house, having the notion that more of their people will have lawful access to the same tools for more universal access, and so on.
Put it another way, it would sure be bogus if to use the highway here I had to only drive a belchfire, and government wouldn't use anything but belchfires, and they were real expensive all the time with expensive parts and expensive maintenance. That's been almost completely "mandated" so far, time to move on to another idea.
The best laid plans of men and mice... (Score:2)
The article, if you read it, says that accpording to one newspaper story, the government PLANS to move SLOWLY (starting with one pilot; ramping up ove rthree years) to Open Source.
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your viewpoint, plans and especially government plans often do not work out. ("No New Taxes", remember that one?). So I would not cheer. Or worry. Just yet.
Michael
We'll see more of these stories (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why competition is so good.
Going to far, dont think so. (Score:2)
I think that is why it is mandatory for 80% of the computers and not 100%.
best tool (Score:2)
We are talking about government here. Their job is long term well-being of their people. OSS is the best tool for this job.
Becoming a Trend? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ballmer [slashdot.org] Does! [slashdot.org]
MS is going through what happened to IBM years ago. "No-one ever got sacked for buying IBM". Decision makers like to run with MS (whether for desktop, development, whatever) because if things go wrong, they at least can't be accused of using "weird" stuff like Linux.
But when others start having the courage to adopt Linux, it becomes less of an excuse. Indeed, if other governments are successful with Linux, decision makers who play conservative will even have to justify why they chose Microsoft when there are other viable alternatives.
If years of gluttony have eroded product and service quality, as IBM discovered, a monopolistic empire can quickly crumble.
This is good for software all round. I am pleased to see Linux getting some action in conservative quarters. I am also pleased that Microsoft will be forced to innovate. Flame if you must, but I think they have always been very good in responding to challenges. Yes, some of that had involved questionable tactics. But they have also made some top innovations over the years, or at least commercialised cutting edge research and ideas which were formerly obscure (e.g. Windows 95 interface - Start Menu, Taskbar etc
Government goes anti-copyright? (Score:4, Insightful)
One thing that really bugs me about many governments around the world is how they are never willing to touch the fundamental issue behind free vs. proprietary software. Copyright is a government-granted exclusive right to a work. If this government-granted right is hurting the society, the society should reconsider the principles behind the copyright.
I find it insane that the Brazilian government first grants each author with strong rights for the software they write and then they say that sorry, we can't use such software because you use the rights we have given you. I also find it insane that the US government grants software authors similar rights and when one company simply uses those government-granted rights (well, I guess you know what company I'm talking about), the government sues it for abusing those rights.
Making open source mandatory is pointless. The proper way to change things is not to grant anyone privileges that hurt the society. The copyright, to some extent, might be a good thing. If it becomes such a bad thing that the government itself wishes to use only copyleft software, there is something fundamentally flawed either in the government decision or the copyright law.
Re:Government goes anti-copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
It is not in the interest of most countries to grant strong copyright monopolies, since most countries are heavy importers of copyrighted products. It is not that long ago that the US was in the same situation, and refused to recognize non-US copyrights. Lord of the Rings used to be published in the US with no permission from
Re:Government goes anti-copyright? (Score:3, Interesting)
"That company" was never granted the right to abuse a monopoly. Nor were they exactly 'granted' the right to such extreme legal IP protection as they now enjoy, they bought it through campaign donations, years of intensive lobbying, and who knows what else behind closed doors.
Mandate Free Software (Score:5, Interesting)
The government shouldn't be subsidizing some _private_ interest if there is a public alternative.
Re:Mandate Free Software (Score:3, Insightful)
So, do you actually have a reason for why government should financially support private interests over public ones? Or are you just going to keep throwing out that buzzword every time your position is challenged, in the hopes that using it as a label will scare away people from the target of your derision, as if it were some sort of boogeyman?
Here's something to chew on: government spending LESS MONEY is about as far from communi
Then they'll have to develop an O/S one (Score:2)
Smart, but risky move (Score:2, Interesting)
What Brazil may hope to achieve is jumpstarting a good develop
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory (Score:5, Interesting)
We should all realize, though, that often the power to choose is wasteful, and unnecessary. What do I mean?
Do you know how much time, effort, and money gets wasted having some government committee trying to decide what software to use for something? How many factors are involved? And we're talking latin america here, don't forget bribes.
The choice to use free software is not the same as the "choice" to use Windows. Free software encompasses a whole range of things; somteimes, an edict like this is what it TAKES To change things.
Canada switched to the metric system in a very short time. How? It was forced on everyone. Once you accept it, it's EASY. Yet we still have people in the US with silly studies saying how it would take 100 years for the US to switch, the logistics, yadda yadda. Guess what, if it was actually decreed that you HAD to switch, you would find a way, it wouldn't be anywhere near as disruptive as everyone says, and so on.
The same happened with the switch to the Euro.. tons of people had studies and reports shownig how switching was going to be a HUGE disaster, how it wouldn't work. Guess what, it went rather well.
Given what government does, I'm sure they can fit whatever applications absolutely cannot be replaced by free alternatives in the 20% non-free they are allowed.
What I'm saying is, in practice, sometimes removing choice is the ONLY way to force a real shift in how things are done. I mean, people have had a choice all along, and the pressures involved caused them to chose proprietary things.
Mr Darl? (Score:2)
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the quarterly report of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended April 30, 2003, the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of each of our knowledge:
1. The quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The in
What this may mean is that... (Score:5, Interesting)
KS
RE: Brazil Mandates Shift to Free Software (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Get off the phone with the Microsoft rep. What mainstream category of software doesn't have an OpenSource counterpart. I say mainstream because I don't think the government of Brazil is going to be the next Pixar. They don't need some super-specialized software! OpenOffice or MS Office --damn what's the best tool for the job. Let's see they do the same damn thing. I should buy MS Office though, because it is the "best tool for the job." I'm sure the people of Brazil are glad you're not in charge cowboy. I'm not trolling here, just leave your unsupported flamebait comment out of the post; it has taken over the discussion here.
More importantly, they will be saving money. There's no way around that for them. They'll also feel less pressured by a company that's interest are far from theirs--the one's that are selling the "best tool for the job" crap like there's no alternative that wouldn't work just as well.
Ah well, just my two cents worth. They're using the BEST tool, they just stopped asking MS what the BEST(tm) tool is.
Bootstrapping (Score:3, Informative)
They can even hire abroad or take solutions from abroad as long as these solutions can be audited. That's just one of the things that makes this decision great. Think about this, why does a government like the United States pay lip service to M$ and permit them to go unpunished for monopolistic practices? Because it's in the interest of USGOV to see the majority of the world's domestic, business, and government networks running software which is easily crackable (easy to break at the TCP/IP stack-namespace and overflow/crack apps and kernels). Want a clue? Go check the Openbsd.org site's front page.
Now we have a government that can spend that money on hardening it's networks and liberating itself from long-term information retrival issues because some corporate clowns own their ass on document protocols. The USGOV also feels threatened when they have to view another government as a competitior (any government that can safeguard its information is no longer their bitch). Face it, we live in a world where secrets are like bombs. The more you don't share, the more chilly relations become. Imagine the NSA having actually create another specialized team to snoop Brazillian networks because they can't use the typical toolz which work almost everwhere else? The next thing you know, the State Department is sending icy messages, making 3am flights, sending mouthpieces with nasty little messages for face-to-face snarl and purr sessions, and dropping notes off at the IMF.
But even though these things will happen (and have probably been happening to some degree already) behind the scenes, this decision at a governmental level will have only as many teeth as is required to make the people in charge happy. Until we hear independent voices in the Open-source/Free software community talking at length about the trials and tribulations and the victories made towards freeing Brazil of closed-source/Lock-in solutions in government programs we should probably relax. Government is a lumbering beast, it can take a long time to turn it in any direction no matter what decision has been made, no matter what the desired outcome is.
Maybe what this topic needs is a good illumination of what happened with Mexico...anyone packing Free-software/open-source stories about Mexico?
Mandate 100% open data formats (Score:5, Insightful)
It also kills off undocumented file formats such as the MS-Word defaults. In order to win the contract, closed source vendors such as MS would have to switch to a default open file format that any application could read. Of course, Word can save files in
Software Libre... Free Software... Freedom !! (Score:5, Funny)
Making a case (Score:3, Insightful)
Playing devil's advocate, it might be fairly easy to make a case for mandatory free software in government. My argument for that would be that government, as a public entity, has special non-technical requirements. It's sufficiently important to insure that a) you know what's in that software, b) you can continue operating and accessing data for time periods literally an order of magnitude or more greater than the average software generation these days regardless of whether any single software vendor exists or supports the products you use, and c) your citizens aren't required to buy specific commercial products just to access government data and services, that those requirements trump any technical superiority of a proprietary solution.
OK, explain this to me (Score:3, Interesting)
This is really the same question. If a dictatorship (an unelected body backed up by, say, international law) controls software which is more efficient than current 'democratic' software, should we use the more efficient software?
Of course, you need to look at the broader issues. Dictatorships have a low life expectancy - the people at the top become more and more corrupt, siphon off more and more money until the whole thing collapses. The people being dictated to lose their ability to think and act constructively, so when the collapse comes anarchy results. Soviet Union, now Iraq. In the same way, countries without an indigenous software industry risk are exposed to the fallout as the suppliers fight among themselves somewhere else in the world. Brazil must be worried about what will happen to the likes of Sun, and the future trend in Microsoft licensing and compatibility. But they cannot control it.
Now, because of the WTO, I suspect that Brazil cannot enforce local sourcing: that would be contrary to internationalisation rules. But they can support OSS, because that is a level playing field around the world.
So my answer to the question about mandating (even though it does not seem to be any such thing) would be that governments have a right to have policies. If the best tool for the job is not currently OSS, someone can try to provide it. That's no different from any other bespoke government software project. The contractor has to agree to some kind of OSS licence. That's just a contract term. If, say, Microsoft wants to bid to build a large government system, they can do so provided they agree to the contract terms. If they choose not to tender, that is their decision.
Many Third World countries have very young populations. Most of their workforce have never been exposed to computers. The argument that installed base prevents migration is not valid as it may be in mature economies. I have long believed that Linux will have its fastest percentage penetration in the Third World, even is this is not the largest in terms of units for some time. Perhaps I'm right.
Affirmative Action for Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Most developing nations don't have English as their national language, so a lot of the "benefits" of doing things the Microsoft way are less apparent to begin with. (E.g. many of the rows and rows of Microsoft-product-related-books in your local Barnes & Nobel that folks buy when they can't figure out how to make their Excel spreadsheet work aren't translated into Portugese or Vietnamese.)
Microsoft and PC makers do a lot of dumping in the third world. E.g. in Viet Nam -- a country I have some experience with -- discontinued brand-name PCs are dumped on the market which serves the dual purpose of prepping the country for a full-priced MS invasion when it can afford it and getting rid of stock that would cut into margins in first world markets. Indeed, it's interesting that so much is made of piracy in such countries, since most of the PCs you see look like they would have come with bundled software.
It seems to me that many developing nations are not short of technical expertise, and developing local additions to a large Open Source base would be a good way of avoiding IT slavery, building up the national skill set, providing good localised software, and in general taking advantage of globalisation instead of being victimised by it.
why "the best tool for the job" is the wrong tool (Score:3, Insightful)
closed-source solutions in cases where a
reasonable development investment can create an
open-source tool. The open-source tool will
continue to develop in response to the particular
needs of the agency, and serve other agencies
in the future at no additional cost, while the
proprietary solution will only cost more money
as it is used increasingly.
In short, the open-source solution costs less and
less per installation over time, whereas the
proprietary one often costs more and more.
The 80% number leaves abundant wiggle-room for
those rare cases where the development investment
or latency of producing a novel open source
solution where none exists, but a proprietary one
is feasible. That number should be gradually
pushed upwards, over time, however, so that the
long-term economies of open-source solutions can
be more thoroughly exploited for the public
benefit.
Public funds should be used in the public interest,
not to enrich a foreign monopolist.
I translated the piece into English... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Say hello to another Wall (Score:2)
Well, in fairness, have you tried Linux for opening cans of dog food???
;)
Re:Mandating freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, the market isn't that "free" either. With powerful trans-national corporations being the only "real" players in the so-called "free market", it would be next to impossible for the Brazilian government to open up the competition.
Freedom != Market Deregulation
Re:Still skeptical (Score:4, Informative)
As someone who is a software engineer for the Brazillian government in São Paulo, I feel compelled to reply.
Open source is widely used and discussed as an option in almost every reguard. Yet virtually all server-based apps are run on solaris. In most cases you can choose to run linux on the desktop - some even choose bsd. Eclipse is fastly becomming universal. Yet virtually all development is being done in Java - pretty open for a closed standard but not exactly open source. Simple decrees will be hard to change that culture.
Still, the media I've read is not showing direct quotes from high level officials. The IT minister is quoted as speaking in the name of (chief of staff) ministro José Dirceu, and even that President Lula has stated software livre is "polÃtica pÃblica de governo". Pretty loftly claims from a lower level official - hope they are true but still as yet are unconfiremed in higher places recently.
It is my belief that the increasing amount of developers believing software livre is kool will have more impact than any law. I don't believe that software livre is really going to save much money as claimed because of wide piracy. Saying Public governments should use publicly available tools makes more sense to me. But seeing those numbers explains how the Secretaria de Fazenda do Rio (Rio IRS) created those swiss bank accounts. [estadao.com.br]
iksrazal
Re:Agreed (Score:3, Informative)
That is not what I said. 95% of the documents I get from Windows boxes open fine. In the other 5% people have no objection to storing the file in an alternative format. I communicate with them just fine.
My problem with Windows (which is also shared by a lot of governments) is the proprietary file format may not be accessable at some time in the future. To me that makes Windows unacceptable for business use where the lifetime of a corporation may ex