| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
job to be done, could you do itjob to be done, could you do itPosted Sep 30, 2003 23:20 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544)In reply to: Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) by Ross Parent article: Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com)
Hi Ross, It doesn't have to be a masterpiece, just say something rather than nothing.
(Log in to post comments)
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
|
|
||||||||||||