| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Here's my letterHere's my letterPosted Oct 3, 2003 1:32 UTC (Fri) by PatientZero (guest, #15678)In reply to: job to be done, could you do it by coriordan Parent article: Proprietary software--banned in Boston? (News.com) 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
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||