| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com)Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com)Posted Sep 30, 2003 22:37 UTC (Tue) by zonker (guest, #7867)In reply to: Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) by rknop Parent article: Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) 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.
(Log in to post comments)
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Sep 30, 2003 22:54 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 23:20 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 23:23 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 Oct 1, 2003 3:24 UTC (Wed) 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 16:31 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 2, 2003 0:11 UTC (Thu) 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 3, 2003 1:32 UTC (Fri) 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 Oct 1, 2003 0:42 UTC (Wed) 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 14:45 UTC (Wed) by jeroen (subscriber, #12372) [Link] The freedom is the most important thing.
Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) Posted Oct 1, 2003 0:40 UTC (Wed) 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 9:46 UTC (Wed) by leandro (subscriber, #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 11:50 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 13:41 UTC (Tue) by leandro (subscriber, #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 12:17 UTC (Wed) by petebull (guest, #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 14:40 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."
|
|
||||||||||||