Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com)
News.com reports
that Massachusetts has adopted a new policy favoring open-source.
"The state will also give preference to open-source software,
although it will continue to purchase proprietary products if they are
found to be superior technologically or otherwise, Kriss said. He
identified state Web servers, which currently run on Microsoft's Internet
Information Services software, as a potential early candidate for
retrofitting. "We're taking a serious look at Apache as a Web server," he
said."
Not everyone is entirely happy about it, as indicated by this press release from the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW). (Log in to post comments)
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:20 UTC (Tue) by subhasroy (guest, #325) [Link] I hope this is not a bagaining ploy to get a steep discount from MS.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 5:27 UTC (Wed) by cpm (subscriber, #3554) [Link] That's what it sounds like to me. Microsoft has sort'of set themselves up for this. I expect folks to do their best to take advantage of it.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:23 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] That press release is truly, truly extreme."The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better"-- isn't that a violation of Godwin's law or some such? I mean, give me a break. The other thing is insisting that this is a monopoly-- it's hardly that. Quite the opposte. Insisting on open source software levels the playing field. Sure, if businesses choose not to work in that model, they're out of luck. If you go with Microsoft, you're stuck with Microsoft, given that their file formats and such are proprietary. If you go with open source, anybody who wants to play can play. I think that the "Citizens Against Government Waste" is probably one of those organizations which deliberately adopted a disingenuous name. -Rob
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:32 UTC (Tue) by meffie (guest, #3120) [Link] If I recall correctly, Citzens Against Govt. Waste is also opposed the Justice Dept anti-trust litigation against Microsoft.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:55 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] Very much so. Just did a Goggle search and found many grossly slanted statements favoring MS by Tom Schatz. Usually it's time to follow the money when such bias is shown.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:37 UTC (Tue) by zonker (subscriber, #7867) [Link] I think that the "Citizens Against Government Waste" is probably one of those organizations which deliberately adopted a disingenuous name.No, they actually tend to oppose pork projects -- if you go to the CAGW site, they tend to be against government doing business with fraudulent companies and such, and they've been around for a while -- which makes me wonder all the more why the group would come out in favor of Microsoft. Something's very odd here. Someone there has bought into the whole "Linux is more expensive" line that Microsoft has put out there. Interestingly, the group doesn't seem opposed to using F/OSS -- they run their site on FreeBSD and Apache.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:54 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] In that case they may actually be open to correction.Maybe we can't convince them that Free Software/Open Source software Also feel free to point out that the studies they are citing were paid
job to be done, could you do it Posted Sep 30, 2003 17:20 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Hi Ross,Could you write them a letter/email? It doesn't have to be a masterpiece, just say something rather than nothing.
job to be done, could you do it Posted Sep 30, 2003 17:23 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] I just did. I'll let everyone know if there is a response.
This will be interesting. Posted Sep 30, 2003 21:24 UTC (Tue) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link] Good luck, sir.CAGW describes themselves as a "non-partisan" organization whose mission is "to eliminate waste, mismanagement, and inefficiency in the federal government." From the little bit I've learned about them, it's my impression that "non-partisan" means to CAGW exactly what they want it to mean. I note from their self-description that they were founded by industrialist J. Peter Grace and columnist Jack Anderson; also that they've received praise from Bob Dole and Christopher Cox. (I'm sure they were planning to mention the Democrats who love them, too, but ran out of room.) Here's a guest opinion in National Review Online by cyber-expert Tom Schatz on how the government can't keep track of its computers. You can take it in between ads for "How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life" and the latest by Ann Coulter and G. Gordon Liddy. Mr. Schatz is not new to the public debate re/ Microsoft. He's responded to one letter of Ralph Nader's thusly: "Ralph Nader is searching for new ways to expand government power and regulate Microsoft now that the federal courts have failed to meet his standards. ... Using the federal government's purchasing power to artificially alter the software market for political purposes would set an ominous precedent for other industries." Just for background: the Nader proposal in question "calls for limiting the number of purchases from any one software provider, while office tools, such as word processing programs, should be required to work with other operating systems to increase competition." This is radical stuff! No wonder Tom Schatz thought the country should be alerted. Yes, sir -- that's one righteously non-partisan watchdog organization.
This will be interesting. Posted Oct 1, 2003 10:31 UTC (Wed) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link] Ugh. You're right. They didn't respond and now that I know more about them I don't expect them to. I did point out that their continued accusations that the government can't even keep track of what computers it has is a huge liability with licensing options from BSA organizations like Microsoft. They could save a whole lot of money and potential legal problems by going with Free Software. I'm sure they don't actually care about saving money as much as saving Microsoft so that is unlikely to pursuade them.
This will be interesting. Posted Oct 1, 2003 18:11 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Your mail might have raised the issue internally, or it might not, and we might never know. But we have a long way to go and every bit helps."People don't notice you when you're there, they notice you when you're still there" (Alan Kay, I think)
Here's my letter Posted Oct 2, 2003 19:32 UTC (Thu) by PatientZero (guest, #15678) [Link] Before reading any of the comments here or on /. I wrote a letter to them. Now that I've seen more of the background, I'm more convinced that they've simply swallowed Microsoft's messages. C'est la vie. Anyway, here the email I wrote.Dear CCAGW and Mr. Schatz, I just read your press release, "Mass. Taxpayers Hurt by Proposed Software Monopoly" and have several comments. I'm starting from the assumption that your organization does indeed represent the interests of individual taxpayers and isn't merely a front for corporate lobbying. The opening paragraph ends with, "Proprietary vendors will be effectively barred from competing for state contracts, limiting competition and raising costs." Can you please cite some references (real-world studies, perhaps) for this statement? The third paragraph closes with, "Maintenance, training and support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary software." Again, do you have any evidence to back this up? I've been in this industry for nearly twenty years now, and almost every study -- and *all* of my personal and professional experience -- has found that the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) of Linux environments is vastly less than equivalent Windows environments. Here is one such article that speaks to this: http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/08/10/1441239 The release also states that "Massachusetts ... is creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software." How can you compare the Microsoft solution -- which provides exactly *one* choice of vendor -- to going with open source software when I can name ten options off the top of my head: * Red Hat As well, should a governmental agency find that it requires specialized customization of its open source software, they can hire employees, contractors, outside consultants, and private corporations to modify their software. When they choose Microsoft Windows, they don't even have the *option* of getting customizations to their software. They are simply stuck with whatever Microsoft has decided its customers as a whole need. Schatz's statement that "The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better" is far more applicable to sticking with Microsoft's software than going with open source solutions. I do find it interesting that Mr. Schatz has chosen to use the same language (socialism, Soviet Union) as Microsoft's Steve Ballmer, especially since the main tenant of socialism is state-controlled production and consumption. Proprietary software is based on a single controller whereas the open source model allows anyone to modify and distribute the product. Just like Ballmer, Schatz has it backwards. I hope that you will reassess your position on open source software and its use in government. While you may be able to argue that a law *requiring* the use of open source software is not desirable, you'll have to come up with fact-based arguments and back them up with evidence. Merely invoking the evils of socialism and claiming -- in contrast to common knowledge and without evidence -- that open source software is far more expensive than proprietary software is not sufficient. Sincerely, PatientZero
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 18:42 UTC (Tue) by Luca (guest, #15603) [Link] Maybe cheap is not the only attribute of FOSS.IMHO think it's better to focus on software quality, and consider costs a nice side effect. IMHO again, there's more to FOSS than just cost. Luca
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 8:45 UTC (Wed) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] The freedom is the most important thing.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 18:40 UTC (Tue) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] Opposing a mandate to use open sourced software or open standards (which seems to bethe primary goal here) isn't the same as being pro-MS. I mean, I'm pro-choice but that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. Same rule applies: the issues seem to be the same, but one doesn't necessarily imply the other. Perhaps the FOSS world needs to stop focusing on the competition so much and go back to Just my two shares of VA stock...
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 3:46 UTC (Wed) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link] > I'm pro-choice but that doesn't mean I'm pro-abortion. From a pro-life standpoint, babies get killed either way, so that would be no better than plain sophistry. > the FOSS world needs to stop focusing on the competition so much and go back to promoting of the fruits of its labor We do, it is MS who makes this stuff necessary by their proprietary lock-in of our prospective users.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 5:50 UTC (Wed) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] I have absolutely no desire to enter a discussion about pro-choice/pro-life issues. Perhaps I should have used as examples the various helmet laws that are scattered across the US. All of the responsible motorcyclists that I know have no problem wearing a helmet but they don't appreciate it being mandated by law. In this case, opposition to helmet laws does not imply an endorsement of riding without a helmet. As for MS and its "...proprietary lock-in of our prospective users..." . All it takes is a mandate or two from the CTO and Office file formats can be changed to a more "friendly" default (Office 95 file formats seem to be supported very well by non-MS office suites), Word can be forbidden as an email editor, etc., and all of it can happen without spending any $$ on new software or swapping out any OSes. If a CTO doesn't do that, it's his/her fault that the company is being "locked in".
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Jan 6, 2004 6:41 UTC (Tue) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link] > I have absolutely no desire to enter a discussion about pro-choice/pro-life issues. That's not what I was doing. I was pointing out that from your opponents' standpoint, the very definition of the word bein used in the issue changes, and this would falsify your position to them. That is, a more precise word or expression must be used. > All it takes is a mandate or two from the CTO and Office file formats can be changed to a more "friendly" default (Office 95 file formats seem to be supported very well by non-MS office suites), Word can be forbidden as an email editor, etc. Not so easy, even if what you propose would be better than the current situation. For one, file formats are not so easy as that. MS Office (and other suites) keeps warning the users they may loose something in converting to other formats... and anyway, which would be the more friendly default you propose? MS XML formats aren't much better documented than the current binary formats, and the capability to generate and read them isn't widespread. Non-MS Office suites compatibility isn't perfect, and MS by underdocumenting and changes makes sure it will hardly ever be. For another, file formats are just part of the issue. There are protocols that MS has purposefully broken (like MS Exchange IMAP or MS ActiveDirectory's Kerberos) and (or) kept undocumented (MS SMB and CIFS, MS AD Kerberos again), and APIs that are never fully nor correctly documented, and keep changing to boot, without ever being fully standardized (MS W32, MS .Net).
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 6:17 UTC (Wed) by petebull (subscriber, #7857) [Link] > they run their site on FreeBSD and Apache.Which means probably nothing at all. I think CAGW outsourced their website hosting and the company who takes the least money from them choose to run their webserver on F/OSS.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 8:40 UTC (Wed) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link] It does mean one thing - FOSS has shown by the webhosting company's example that it can be the price/performance leader in at least one domain.Something that should give CAGW some pause in their conclusion that this initiative will "limit competition and raise costs."
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 18:10 UTC (Tue) by nd (guest, #15578) [Link] It sometimes amazes me how much Microsoft is alike with the Soviet Union.Huge in size (biggest in the world?), awfully dictatorial, heavily using propaganda ("FUD"), globally threatful, backward in technologies, closed so that no one could break away. Whenever somebody does break themselves free, they all the sudden become "un-American cancerous virus" and declared to have a "pacman-like nature", as Billy Gates once described the GPL license. Isn't this astounding? Yes, the guys in Massathussetts surely made a drastic decision. But maybe this is the only efficient one to withstand Microsoft?
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 19:30 UTC (Tue) by huaz (guest, #10168) [Link] > It sometimes amazes me how much Microsoft is alike with the Soviet Union.> Huge in size (biggest in the world?), awfully dictatorial, heavily using > propaganda ("FUD"), globally threatful, backward in technologies, closed > so that no one could break away. SU was gone more than one decade ago, and today this is mostly true for US now. It's huge, it heavily uses propaganda (not only to its own people but also the world), it's a global threat to world peace, and it now starts to close its doors.
OT: immigration to or from ? Posted Oct 1, 2003 0:27 UTC (Wed) by guybar (subscriber, #798) [Link] I'm sorry for the OT-ness, but you really got me curious: nd said: >> ... [The SU was] closed so that no one could break away. (my emphasis) then you [huaz] replied: > ... [the US] now starts to close its doors. Huaz, what you say here is a harsh allegation, can you back it up ? AFAIK, the US is making immigration to it harder, not from it. Either you misspoke, or I misunderstood, or the US laws had REALLY changed. Any references ? links ?
OT: immigration to or from ? Posted Oct 1, 2003 14:02 UTC (Wed) by huaz (guest, #10168) [Link] > Huaz, what you say here is a harsh allegation, can you back it up ?> > AFAIK, the US is making immigration to it harder, not from it. > Either you misspoke, or I misunderstood, or the US laws had REALLY > changed. Any references ? links ? I think you already backed me up. So you call it open when immigration "from" it is OK, while "to" it is not? In my dictionary a door opens both ways. Or you are just talking about one-way doors? Sorry, I didn't mean to raise a political flame here.
OT: immigration to or from ? Posted Oct 1, 2003 15:53 UTC (Wed) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link] There's no such thing as "immigration from". It's called "emigration".
Money trail from Media Transparency Posted Oct 1, 2003 2:07 UTC (Wed) by kmself (subscriber, #11565) [Link] Media Transparancy shows that Citizens Against Government Waste receives funding from the John M. Olin Foundation ("grew out of a family manufacturing business (chemical and munitions), funds right-wing think tanks") and The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, Inc. ("the country's largest and most influential right-wing foundation"), which curiously are the very same organizations funding the Alex de Tocqueville Institution, known for publishing Opening the Open Source Debate May 31, 2002.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:24 UTC (Tue) by guinan (subscriber, #4644) [Link] I remember in 1998 when Linux really started to become popular,a lot of people asked "how do I make money on this?", and the answer was "by selling services around Linux". And many people went into business to do just that, and I think the services model is sound one, it was just a little -Jamie (who lives in MA and has a 1-person .com operation ;) )
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 20:34 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I hope we'll never see government contracts mandating Linux or any other operating system. The government can set conditions, like compatibility with existing hardware or openness of the code or low TCO. Whether you can do it with Linux or NetBSD or even with Windows - it should not matter as long as the generic conditions are justified.I also hope that money spent on buying nad supporting buggy software will be spent elsewhere. Software doesn't need to be expensive.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:27 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] "The Business Software Alliance (BSA), which enforces licensing provisions for Microsoft and other software makers, said in a statement that the policy could hurt a number of software makers, including Massachusetts-based companies."I suppose the BSA thinks that it's possible to save tax payers money and not hurt businesses? In any case isn't this an admission by the BSA that OSS is less expensive?
Let's recast this statement a little... Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:46 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] "The United Ice Producers, which represents the interests of various ice companies in the region, said in a statement that the new health and safety requirement for mechanical refrigeration in all restaurants and taverns could hurt a number of ice makers, including Massachusetts-based companies."Hmmmm....
Let's recast this statement a little... Posted Oct 1, 2003 15:53 UTC (Wed) by chethcoat (guest, #4535) [Link] Hey, my buggy whip operation is in *serious* jeopardy...
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 16:40 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] CAGW President Tom Schatz is sure winning a lot of friend in MA with statements like: "The old Soviet Union could not have done this any better" and "Massachusetts is proving itself the most technologically inept state in the nation." and "It's time for Governor Romney to bring Massachusetts into the twenty-first century"I sure that that will help convince those involved.
Who are they going to ask? Posted Sep 30, 2003 18:40 UTC (Tue) by a_hippie (subscriber, #34) [Link] Hopefully this isn't too stupid of a question, but exactly who will beconsulted when it comes time to evaluate alternatives to proprietary software? Is there any organization currently in operation where US governments can turn for Free or Open Source Software (FOSS) assistance? Is there a 1-800-freedom telephone number they can call? I know M$ is everywhere lobbying/selling/forcing their wares, so I am sure than when it comes time for MA to begin their FOSS quest, M$ will be there, and there, and there too. Viva la MA! May your quest result in the best FOSS has to offer, openly. Wishing you well.
Who are they going to ask? Posted Sep 30, 2003 20:40 UTC (Tue) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] The best solution for the government would be to buy a package with support and let the contractor decide. The government is elected to make political decisions, and choosing between GNU/Linux and FreeBSD for the government webserver is not a political decision. Whoever can do it better and within allocated budget should be free to determine the details.
Who are they going to ask? Posted Sep 30, 2003 21:20 UTC (Tue) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] I don't know about this state's government, but many governments (and certainly the federal government) already have people whose job it is to evaluate alternatives, or have people with special limitations (can't compete, etc.) who can help them evaluate alternatives.And if they need help evaluating products, I suggest looking at my recent paper describing how to evaluate open source software / free software (OSS/FS). It has lots of tips on how to evaluate OSS/FS programs.
I'd like to know more about this "open source/Linux software" monopoly? Posted Sep 30, 2003 19:13 UTC (Tue) by frazier (subscriber, #3060) [Link] Under the state's proposed "Freeware Initiative," there would be no exceptions to the rule permitting only open source/Linux software." Schatz added.Now, I'd give them a little room if the legistaltion mandated Linux use (and maybe it does, but I doubt it) only. Where is this "open source/Linux software" monopoly?
FOS and proprietary are two types of license, not two types of software Posted Sep 30, 2003 20:18 UTC (Tue) by odonnell (guest, #3265) [Link] ... it will continue to purchase proprietary products if they are found to be superior. This phrase exposes the difficulty in discussing FOS vs. proprietary choices clearly. In my long experience, I have never known anyone to purchase proprietary software. Rather, people pay for licenses to proprietary software, which are financially more like leases than sales, but are generally on less favorable terms than real estate or vehicle leases. The "purchaser" of proprietary software generally acquires the temporary use of a product that she cannot fix herself, and that the owner will not fix, when it proves faulty. GPLed software is also licensed, but with rights that come fairly close to the rights transferred in a sale, except of course for exclusivity. A policy decision to prefer FOSS is not a creation of monopoly, nor a discrimination against particular software products. Rather, it is a standard for acquisition, recognizing that the lack of certain rights in the use of a software product may be inherently harmful to the user, independently of the technical quality of the software. Mike O'Donnell
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 21:13 UTC (Tue) by echodots (guest, #15103) [Link] I really hate when companies and 'others' don't go by the facts and just go by what they 'feel' is correct information. Everybody knows if you have a unix administrator, they are easilly ported to linux much faster than window administrators. And it cost no more to maintain linux than it does anything other freely distrobuted and community supported software. They really need to wake up and stop knocking something that is wonderful for A) the linux movement and B) for the city of boston.echodots
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 3:29 UTC (Wed) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] There have been several articles that state that proprietary software would be banned in Massachusett (which is not true) and I believe Mr. Kriss did an error by mentioning Open Source at all because that made it possible to create all those misleading articles.He should just have said that the new policy favors software using free, open standards. That's way more important than a policy that favors open source software. Of course, that would make all the articles much more boring...
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 4:04 UTC (Wed) by deatrich (subscriber, #25) [Link] Well, however he worded the new policy, I doubt that the BSA would react in any other way. Here is the register's editorial (BSA imagines open source policy, attacks mass.gov) about the reaction from the BSA. An extract:'...but when the BSA mounts an attack on a software purchasing policy that doesn't quite exist yet, and quite possibly won't exist, one begins to wonder who's driving the "voice of the world's commercial software industry".'
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 4:41 UTC (Wed) by docolczyk (guest, #14874) [Link] I wonder if they are going to be cutting or not increasing budgetsto induce departments from going with OSS. If they keep giving departments enough money for proprietary software, they will keep using proprietary software. Remember the Ada debacle.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 6:51 UTC (Wed) by zooko (subscriber, #2589) [Link] I'm sure that CAGW's distaste for Open Source software isn't because they think that it is expensive, but they think that it is communist.I'm not kidding. Someone needs to tell them that a huge fraction of the creators and users of Open Source software are businessmen and economic libertarians like themselves. Regards, Zooko
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 18:21 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] The problem with past communist regimes has been central control (dictators).It's worth pointing out that Free Software does not have a dictator. It has thousands of part owners and every one of them has agreed to give it's users all the permissions they need. > Someone needs to tell them... When no one else steps up to the plate, "Someone" becomes you. Ciaran O'Riordan
Dear Tom (copy FYI, note date) Posted Oct 2, 2003 1:41 UTC (Thu) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link] From: Leon Brooks <DESPAMMED>Organization: CyberKnights - modern tools, traditional dedication To: tschatz AT cagw BLOT org Subject: What a waste! Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:39:44 +0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.3 Cc: media AT CAGW, Peter Quinn <DESPAMMED>, Eric Raymond <DESPAMMED>, Richard Stallman <DESPAMMED> I speak for myself, not for the excellent organisations of which I am a member, and quote from this article: http://prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/09-30-2003/0002027026 > People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can > be freely altered and distributed. Yet while the software itself > is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very > expensive. Tom, you've got that last bit completely bass-ackwards. Linux is not always free to purchase, but it is very rare for the ROI to be other than a big improvement on MS-Windows - which to cut through a lot of bulldust is what it would be replacing in Massachusetts. I charge half as much again as a typical MS-Windows technician for my Linux work, and I'm so busy I have to turn people away because the Linux-based results are so much better than any proprietary ones they've ever seen. The ROI results for OpenOffice.org, the office suite that MA will be replacing MS-Office with, are even more astounding. Fetch a copy of OpenOffice.org 1.1 yourself and try it out. Proper crash recovery, no viruses, scads of extra features including PDF and Flash output, and getting even better while you wait. Both of these products are examples of one of the strongest forms of Open Source, the GPL or "Free (as in speech) Software". > It is ironic that Massachusetts, as the only state remaining in > the lawsuit accusing Microsoft of antitrust violations, is > creating its own state-imposed monopoly on software. If it's a monopoly, you should be able to name the company or political force which is in control of it. Can you? Not a hope! Open Source is not a brand, it is not a production line, it has no office, no secretariat, no board of directors, no legal department, no shares. Open Source is people. Lots and lots of people. People combining their efforts and building on each other's work instead of hiding and WASTING it, or working to destroy each other as proprietary software makers so often do. Massachusetts' actions will not form a monopoly, they will BREAK an existing, entrenched, CONVICTED monopoly. Microsoft and their lackeys claim to only want a level playing field, but on any modern playing field they are the 800lb gorilla and everyone else is a capuchin underfoot. Is that fair? Should we stand back, as we have been doing, and let all of the corporate capuchins be crushed in the name of "free market" and > most studies conclude that acquisition costs represent only 5 to > 10 percent of total cost of ownership. Maintenance, training and > support are far more expensive with open source than proprietary > software. Go and have a look at who FUNDS those studies (and if not directly, then have a look at the organisation's biggest customer), and then have a little think about who the government WASTES most IT funding on. Then go and read some real studies. Perhaps some which include the costs of fighting viruses and worms, perhaps some which count the cost of regular crashes, lost data and lost privacy. Not even the esoterica of trying to count the WASTE in re-invented wheels, a WASTE which CAGW seem particularly hostile to. You've been duped, Tom Schatz, and the quicker you wake up to having been suckered, the less damage will be done - to you, and to those you oppose. If you do not recant swiftly, you will be written off and backwatered as irrelevant "opinion for hire" (like Citizens for a Sound Economy, the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, the Cato Institute, and so on). The very words and phrases you chose - like "communist" - to hurl at Massachusetts IT department could have been ripped out of a Microsoft PR statement; they resonate with the same feelings, attitudes and mistakes. Start thinking for yourself! Start fighting the immense government waste which spending on proprietary software represents. Money spent on making Bill Gates richer is WASTED, has to be spent again and again as new versions roll out. Money spent on tailoring and growing Open Source Software to suit Massachusetts is an investment which will yield not only for MA, not only for every American state that follows in their footsteps, but potentially for every administration and business in the world. Even if you never understand this, even if you oppose the new paradigm with all of your might, it will succeed as surely as life itself succeeds in reclaiming denuded soil. Anyone wanting to give FOSS a push these days has to run. Cheers; Leon -- http://cyberknights.com.au/ Modern tools; traditional dedication http://plug.linux.org.au/ Committee Member, Perth Linux User Group http://slpwa.asn.au/ Committee Member, Linux Professionals WA http://linux.org.au/ Committee Member, Linux Australia Richard wrote back to mention that OSS != Free Software and we should be calling it GNU/Linux but otherwise seemed to agree, nobody else has.
|
|||||||||||