Obama wants to know: Why open source?

President Barack Obama is a smart guy. Where others zig, he zags. It's perhaps not surprising, then, that he's been asking around about the benefits of open source, according to Sun Chairman Scott McNealy, who has been asked by President Obama to author a white paper on the benefits the U.S. government can derive from open source.

McNealy, cited in a BBC News story, wasn't shy in identifying them:

It's intuitively obvious open source is more cost effective and productive than proprietary software....The government ought to mandate open-source products based on open-source reference implementations to improve security, get higher-quality software, lower costs, higher reliability--all the benefits that come with open software.

While I agree with those benefits, I'm not a supporter of mandates. I wouldn't want the government mandating Microsoft software--why would I therefore seek an open-source mandate? Open source has done remarkably well in the U.S. federal government without mandates, and will continue to do so because of the benefits identified by McNealy.

Will President Obama listen? I suspect he's more likely to do so. He'll get plenty of lobbyist cash from technology companies like Microsoft, but with few companies now solely dependent on proprietary software (indeed, I'd argue that there aren't any left), open source is going to be on everyone's agenda.

For other positions on McNealy's open-source suggestions, see The 451 Group's Matt Aslett's blog and OStatic.

[Mr. Dee]

President Obama needs to look at the TCO here and not think a solution will come from simply implementing Open Source. For instance, you have 100 Government Employees who have been using Windows and Office at work and home for many years. There is an expectation, a seamless experience that the platform already delivers. How would disrupting that by implementing alternative solutions through Open Source improve that? You have retraining cost to think about, the cost of implementing it, testing it and getting it to a level where you would hope it works as advertised. And don't think you don't pay for Open Source, you do. Its most likely to be from a commercial distro too and that is just money going into the same process. Microsoft does not force Governments to upgrade either, if you are happy with Windows XP or 2000 and Office 2003, sure, continue using it and you can acquire extended support. Open Source is only meeting an agenda, an agenda that says, for us to win, Microsoft must loose. So far it has not worked, and that's why it (Linux) will remain at 1% hobbyist.

[skillingssucks]

You have no idea what you're talking about. And if you think Linux is only 1% it's because you're nothing but a hobbyist yourself and you know nothing about Linux server installations. By the way, the word you are looking for is "lose".

[msjonker]

I have to agree that is IS all about TCO. The software being "free" isn't the TCO.

And McNeely generalizing open-source software as providing the following benefits: "improve security, get higher-quality software, lower costs, higher reliability--all the benefits that come with open software" is not true. I can create an open source project and it can deliver none any of these things. All software should be evaluated on its merits alone and not just be cause it is open source.

Also, do you think McNeely would be supporting this initiative if he didn't stand to profit from it? That up-front cost of $0 sure looks nice, but once you've selected software, its typically hard to transition from it, and that's where the hidden costs are.

[MSSlayer]

Seamless?

You mean like moving from Office 2003 to 2007?

Yeah, moving everything around and burying useful functions underneath 5 dialog boxes is seamless.

[Mr. Dee]

MSSlayer:

I have spoken to many folks who have upgraded to Office 2007 and they say its way easier. Nothing is hidden under drop menus, its all there in front of you under a few tabs. I think your complaining is more related to why didn't OO.org or K-Office didn't think of that? Sometimes there needs to be change and Office 2007 is the best one to date. Its selling like hot cakes btw. So, whatever issues you have with it relates to your internal Richard Stallman jealousy syndrome.

[vexeuz]

can you add me to one of the people that don't like office 2007? and vista too. just because it does really take more steps to get to things nows.

[chrisspen]

msjonker,

It's true, all software has some cost associated with installation and maintenance. But open source will always have a lower TCO, since that support is not restricted to a single party. If Outlook 2007 has a bug, there's only one company that can fix it, Microsoft. And they'll fix it at their leisure, and charge you what they want. If there's a bug found in an open source product, you can potentially fix it yourself (if you're a developer), or contract the job to an arbitrary developer and have fair more negotiating power in how much the job will cost. Also, proprietary software vendors (even Microsoft) typically don't support their products indefinitely, whereas with open source, you'll always have the source code, so you can buy support as long as there are developers familiar with the code's language.

Btw, it's also fun to see you argue against open source by accusing McNeely of attempting to achieve some sort of software monopoly/lock-in. Per my arguments above, that idea should seems ridiculous, but it's amazing you don't see that danger with proprietary software, where lock-in is virtually guaranteed.

[MSSlayer]

Dee Dee Dee,

There may be a button for nearly everything on the laughable tabbed toolbar, but then you are faced with a rather deep dialog box mess.

You obviously haven't used it(I have and was forced to teach poor freshman how to use this turd), so stop commenting.

[CNET editors' note: Prohibited content deleted.]

[ChipAndre]

Dee, you chose a very poor example with Office 2007 vs Open Office vs Older versions of MS Office. I have used all three office suites, and the transition from older versions of MS Office to Open Office is FAR easier than the transition to Office 2007. The differences between Open Office and the "classic" versions of MS office are trivial, both in functionality and appearance. Any user of one can instantly use the other with no retraining necessary. Office 2007 has many improvements over earlier versions, but a user accustomed to the "classic" layout must spend some time becoming acquainted with the radically different layout in order to regain their previous level of efficiency.

Other software choices may be less cut and dry, but when it comes to office suites, Open Office is the clear winner in cost, both short term and long term.

[tcr071]

MSSLayer

Office '07 is widely recognized as much easier and efficient than Office '03. Just because you got so used to Office '03 that you couldn't find the things you were looking for doesn't mean Office '07s UI is a pile of junk.

If you were to show someone who had never used Office before both versions and ask which one they would rather use Office '07 would be the pick 99.9% of the time.

There is a reason the ribbon is replacing the UI on most of Microsoft Software and it isn't because it is a pain in the ass to use, no it is the exact opposite actually. And the CUSTOMERS are the ones asking for it.

[Dalkorian]

Yes, it's invariably easier for slaves to remain with their masters, but is it really better for their future? Keep all your eggs locked up in one proprietary basket all you want Mr. Dee, but I'd rather have options. I'd rather own my own data than to trust some monolithic corporation to look out for my best interests.

That said, I'm with the author regarding mandating certain products of any creed being a bad idea. The file formats should be mandated to be open (so they can be viewed even if M$ goes under and the .doc file format dies in 4 years), but let them use what ever software they decide to use. Even if they decide to torture themselves under their M$ masters. Just because bondage and enslavement isn't for me doesn't mean I have a right to dictate whether or not it's right for you.

[neo_granas]

@Mr. Dee

I disagree. I think it is more 1%, and secondly there are many distributions that are absolutely free and the support for them matches Microsoft in many ways. CentOS, while great for a server, can also be used as a desktop system. Ubuntu offers a Long Term Support and Canonical provides paid support for a number of years. Linux does not force anyone to upgrade, you can stay at any version you want. But just like Microsoft, which has been saying it will drop support for XP, security updates are needed if you don't want your machine to become compromised. So by saying you aren't forced to upgrade with Windows, I suggest you turn on automatic updates and you will change your opinion.

If you think Windows doesn't have an agenda, then you are naive. Linux may remain a hobby, but it will be because the Linux community as a whole can't agree on what's best, and everyone has the power to change what they have. Microsoft spoon feeds it's customers, which isn't always bad, but it is illegal to change their source code.

[xcal78]

You don't have much experience in a business environment I can see. All windows updates are downloaded to an internal server then pushed out internally. Business systems can run older OS's with little issues for extended periods of time because of the additional security in place by the business. I know my company is still running a NT 4.0 server perfectly. Nothing forcing them to upgrade as your opinion implies.

[Mr. Dee]

Microsoft from the scratch was built as Company that makes proprietary software. There is no changing that and I wouldn't want them to change. Their business model has worked successfully for them. Reports are that Company's like Redhat and SUN are not even profiting from the paid support model. We know that commercial software works, we know that Company's prefer it because of its guarantee. Redhat and Novell give you 7 years, Microsoft gives you 10 plus extended support if you need it. Customers see a lot of value in how Windows is marketed and supported. Everybody knows it and it will continue to be this way. Look at Netbooks, that form factor debuted as a Linux device, but soon as Microsoft supported it with Windows XP, it grabbed 70% of the market, that pretty much says it all about Linux. For an OS that has been around for 17 years, you would have expected it to start making some inroads.

[xcal78]

Companies prefer it because of cost mainly. The user rejection of having to learn a new OS would be staggering. Most employees have taken years to get comfortable with Windows and will refuse to have to learn another OS. Why should they have to learn another OS for work then use Windows at home? That's confusing for most people and rightfully so. Apple is outright out of companies sinec it requires more expensive and new hardware. Linux isn't to a point people can use it at home on the same level as Windows so that all but eliminates it from business use as well. Specially in this down economy companies will choose the cheapest way to do stuff and that's staying with Windows. The cost of the licenses and support is genrally never the issue. It's all the user support that's required to leave Windows that will prevent a company from leaving.

[Dalkorian]

by Mr. Dee January 22, 2009 11:35 AM PST
Look at Netbooks, that form factor debuted as a Linux device, but soon as Microsoft supported it with Windows XP, it grabbed 70% of the market ...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
by xcal78 January 22, 2009 11:44 AM PST
Specially in this down economy companies will choose the cheapest way to do stuff and that's staying with Windows.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's like we entered the red light district around here. Just keep going, don't make eye contact ...

[Mr-Germ]

Ask Germany about the "cost" saving when using open source, LOL

I use both, there are pluses and minus to both.

[jpkeisala]

"Ask Germany about the "cost" saving when using open source, LOL "
Not sure what you mean by this because at least German public sector tells that they have made huge savings last year because of going Open Source though they did have bad start back in 2006 when Novell implement it.

[Calvin Hobbs]

It is not about the Applications used. It is about the file formats generated and the ability to freely use the files generated across any platform that wishes to use the spec. Microsoft has consistently obstructed cross platform and open formats on purpose. My son in University ran into the cold hard fact of lock in when his course mandated the use of Windows XP or Vista and a copy of Microsoft Office. That is one of the tolls of lock in that should not exist.

[pjhenry1216]

Which university would do this? There's open source software that will produce Word-compatible documents. There's no reason to mandate what a student uses as long as the content produced is readable by the faculty. In reality, you probably don't need either Windows or MS Office and I doubt they'd ever figure it out either.

[Calvin Hobbs]

Wayne State University is the one. His MBA course requirements.

http://www.busadm.wayne.edu/article.php?id=13

There are many others such as this.

http://www.post.edu/online/technical_requirements.shtml

Most problems occur due to a reliance on Active X and IE for online activities.

[shootthecops]

some of my university classes also mandate the newest version of IE, wine won't do the trick here. needless to say i wrote Pearson, the company that mandated IE a greetings, wishing whoever made the site IE-exclusive die from drowning in a vat of aids.

[EndlessMike]

So your son's business college wants him to use the operating system that the vast majority of businesses use? Man, what a horrible program, why ever would they want him to have skills relevant to his future?

[Calvin Hobbs]

You are making my argument for me. The world should not be depending on one sole provider of software to get a job done. I have nothing against MS Office or Windows in all its iterations. I do have a problem with file formats that cannot be freely shared. We almost lost control of the web to Microsoft and would have if it was not for Open Source solutions. Leveraging a monopoly and extending it illegally is a dangerous thing and it is very telling that the only way to compete is by giving away the code free.

[wkcook]

Universities usually do this to help the student. They get contracts with companies that support particular hardware, OS, software, etc. This way, when the students have SW/HW issues there is an actual person on campus that can assist. Makes good sense to me.

WKC

[jojofrankie]

To exclude MS from the list of options is ludicrous and rather counterproductive in a capitalist nation. A conversation that leads to an understanding of the viability of open source software seems much more appropriate and beneficial.

A side note: as open source software becomes progressively main stream, we will see many of the same issues that have plagued MS - legacy support, malicious software, etc.

[MSSlayer]

Calvin Hobbs nailed it.

Obama needs to mandate true open file format protocols.

OOXML doesn't count because it can be changed on a whim, has patent traps and is impossible to implement 100%.

Once that is done, the applications used to write and edit them are irrelevant.

In the next decade or two, how many billions of dollars of taxpayer money is going to be wasted to move all those documents from older, unsupported formats to newer formats? Hopefully those newer formats have no lock in attached, or this merry-go-round of insanity will never end.

Just say no to proprietary formats.

[Carion]

Dead right,

Mandate Open Formats and leave it to the user/organization to choose which OS/Office suite he/she/it wants to use.

[LinuxRules]

Matt, you never had computers replaced in a business or had a major IT overhaul. In the work-order, just like any business deal, you mandate what exactly is going to take place what equipment and software is going where and when. So YES M$ is being MANDATED to be put on all business/schools computers. Apple and Linux OS could be implemented, but usually not, because the CEO only knows M$, and only see M$.

[xcal78]

Generally it has little to do with the vendor then the TCO. The cost to retrain employees, new equipment, new software, new licenses, etc. With MS the companies just pay a set fee per license to get support and upgrades so the TCO is minimal. I've done many many system changes and the user rejection and re-training will easily be 2-3 times the cost of the old system alone!

[Dalkorian]

@xcal78, did Bill pay you extra to work it this hard? My goodness, selling yourself like that is sick.

[xcal78]

Dalkorian I guess you can't read well but try too sometime. I don't care about MS, Apple, Unix, Linux, or any other POS OS you can name. They all suck to someone and someone loves them yet they all have flaws and strengths. Take basic economics at face value. It's a system that works for anything in life. I will say I hate fan boys of anything like you Dalkorian. Apple fan boys are far worse then MS fan boys but all are on the same level, the gutter!

[ITRebel]

The real cost of open source has yet to be seen with the coming legal quagmire due to much of it from dubious or legal challengeable sources such as would happen with a GPL license development involving thousands of programmers. Since Mr. Obama is an attorney, he would understand these legal problems. Mr. Obama needs to read the excellent article on this major open source legal problem that recently appeared in the Cornell Law Review and was written by legal scholar who is sympathetic to open source development, but who also understands these enormous legal challenges. If Mr. Obama ignores these legal issues with open source software, he will end up costing his government much more than would ever be thought possible with a new software implementation.

[MSSlayer]

More FUD from the ever clueless ITRebel.

Thousands of programmers worked on Windows. You really think they didn't use copyrighted code(include GPL code) that they don't own?

You keep pointing to one paper written by someone of dubious technical knowledge as proof of your ridiculous claims.

How about you point to real world proof?

[ITRebel]

MSSlayer,

The last time that I checked, the Cornell Law Review was a very reputable publication. I should add that the legal opinions expressed in this publication have much more credibility than your previously expressed legal opinions in this blog a few weeks ago about the legal basis of open source developers who hack proprietary code. Once again, I tend not to take legal advice from an avowed software hacker like you.

You might want to read Elinor Mills article in the Security Section of Cnet.com on January 13 for a story about an open source software hacker like you who broke through a proprietary software program and effectively pirated it. The piracy was unequivocally illegal.

While I am sure that some of the pirated illegal code or trade secrets also go into proprietary development, it is very hard to discover in closed proprietary software that is kept as a trade secret. On the other hand, in open source software, such illegal code is out there for all to see. That is why the Cornell legal scholar thinks that thesei incidents like reported on CNet.com on January 13 are just the tip of the iceberg for legal problems facing open source development.

If you want to look for other examples of incidents, just read any open source blog or help forum and you will see countless examples of open source developers bragging about how they are in the process of cracking or pirating proprietary code (just like you were bragging a few weeks ago!).

[Random_Walk]

So you can point to examples of this alleged "piracy"?

The last lawsuit involving alleged "stolen" intellectual property in open-source software left the plaintiff bankrupt and discredited.

[ITRebel]

Random Walk,

Read the most recent Cornell Law Review article by Huang. You need to get more current with your understanding of open source law. You are several years out of date.

[vamman]

Open Software is Open and CAN be much more insecure than closed software by definition. Software isn't everything and open source engineers will need to either work directly with the government or the government has a permeability team dealing with open issues.

[bemenaker]

You don't really understand the points you are trying to describe. Being open to see the source code, and modify it, is not the same as insecure software. Those two things are 100% mutually exclusive. The fact is, that Open Source software is generally patched faster, and has fewer bugs up front because of the number of eyes upon it, and due to it's more extensive testing before official merger. How many updates has MS released that totally broke something? I've been a Windows Admin for 13 years, and I've seen it happen plenty of times.

[JEG2006]

McNealy's statement is...uninformative...to say the least. It would be nice to actually read the white paper. There is no information here about where or how it would be beneficial to integrate Open Source solutions, though I seriously doubt anyone is going to propose a 100% overhaul strategy. ! However, I am certain there are many opportunities where an open source solution would be able to reduce cost and improve efficiency with minimal impact on end users. Not sure about Linux desktops and OpenOffice. I think I'd look at infrastructure first, as that is where the biggest gains are likely to be had.

[AppleSuxLeo]

VLC media player is wonderful...one of my absolute must-have open source software. If all open source was this good , it might take over the world.

[FutureGuy]

All I can tell Obama is the only reason "open source"/free software even exists is because that's one way to compete/gain market share from commertial companies like MS. MS in many ways is the main motivator for "open source"/free software. If you take companies like MS and Apple out of the picture the resources available to enhance and maintain open source software will dry up faster than dry ice under hot California sun.

[lbcoder]

That is not correct. There is more to it than just "wanting to compete". Fact is that windows is a platform designed to advance the goals of the monopoly responsible for it, and they do it by treating the users like they're all criminals. Open source platforms, like Linux, are there to give the USER the FREEDOM to do what THEY WANT to do. It is this inherent freedom that makes development of open source software appealing.

And if you took ms and apple out of the picture, contrary to what you suggest, you would suddenly have a MASSIVE INCREASE in the resources devoted to the advancement of open source software. The reason for this is that those same resources are going to be put into something no matter what.

[adelie42]

That is amusing. MS operates in the finance economy where the value of the software is how much money can be made. OSS operates in the real economy outside the finance economy where improvements to software are intrinsic, and censorship isn't the root of its power (value isn't gained through scarcity). The argument comes from whether or not companies can profit from OSS. Of course they can, just not through the illusion of false scarcity. Con artists and middle men hate it when they are beaten out by real value. The only reason government should hate F/OSS is because it can't be taxed.

If what you want is better software / information technology, F/OSS is obviously the best choice, but software can be the means to the end of either profitability or better software. Profitability can mean more money to stay competitive, or better software can be produced that is more productive such that the software can be used to do better business.

As long as there is a need for better faster software to do things and look at problems in new ways, there will be money for programmers. Microsoft has contributed to the software industry as much as, and in the same way the RIAA has contributed to music culture. Great music has always come from the truest music lovers, and I am certain for as long as people could hear, there has always been value in music. Only since there has been money in heavily controlled mass distribution of information has a new type of criminal been imagined in order to ensure control and maintenance of a very profitable business.

The government and other users are not in this business. Just because of the present level of control by Microsoft, and possibly the long for people to get back in touch with culture could be difficult with companies like Microsoft and members of the RIAA and MPAA that have so much to gain from the commoditization of our culture is no reason to continue to support it.

If the best move for the government is for them to gain the most money through the largest bribes and handing out control to large companies that results in "standardization" through exclusive control, then sticking with Microsoft will be the sure way to go. If Obama wants to make a move for the people, encourage transparent culture where people participate in it, rather than just pay for it where a faith in humanity is what will be the most profitable (with regard to value and encouragement of useful labor) then the FIRST thing Obama can do is embrace open standards and free open source software.

[Pablo_Livardo]

Fundamentally, there's no difference between open source and proprietary software, it's all been written by programmers using industry best practices to ensure quality and testing. It's just how they're recompensed. Open source stuff will always be here and any organization should look at the alternatives and take advantage where they can.

Open source development is mature and just as professional. Hell, it's even the same programmers sometimes but it's bad for business. Therefore, if an open source product can do what you need and had a lower overall impact, go for it.

Microsoft, and Apple for that matter, want to lock you in. They want you to use their software only and they use all types of tricks to make you do that. Why think for yourself and build a kick-ass IT environment when you could just use their products and have a fair environment that's sort of OK but expensive. You're a fool if you unknowingly get locked into the Microsoft world. They have some good programmers and great products but they also have some that are pretty lame.

[praeficere]

I love open source, but requirement for government should be that they use published and well accepted open standards. Commercial and FOSS solutions can now compete fairly, and access is available to anyone with access to any computer resources. Government should not be enslaved to a single vendor for anything. Products like exchange offer standard protocols with limited function, this isn't good enough. The product should completely support open standards and protocols for its full functionality or it should be passed by.

[bitlayer]

@Mr. Dee - You clearly live in a vacuum, and one that apparently has a Windows rainbow flag slapped on the outside of it. No inroads? Have ever heard of 'the internet'? Take a look at Netcraft's report on market shares of various web servers.

http://news.netcraft.com/archives/web_server_survey.html

Apache (Yes... it's open source) kills Microsoft in this space. Guess what operating system the majority of those web servers are using? Yes... open source Linux variants.

You are also seem to be under a false assumption that if open source software comes into play that all users will have to adapt. Most Windows users are clueless to they fact that they are *already* dependent on tons of open source software for their daily use. You appear to be one of those (who incidentally is viewing a page delivered via open source technology currently).

You may also find this reference helpful for future posting:
http://www.wikihow.com/Use-Apostrophes

[knick_knolte]

The main advantage of open source is not cost, but security, quality and integrity.

Security because the code is an open book, and so no vested interest can bias the code without many people knowing.

Quality because the development effort comes not from a lackey on the clock waiting for beer o'clock - but by those that have an intrinsic interest in the software. Many developers only care about end of the year reviews, and will only do what's needed to meet the bar, they have no interest in going over and beyond.

Integrity since special interests with long term strategic and covert scheme are not given control. This is one reason why Microsoft products suck so much - there's always a hidden agenda within them.

I agree with other posts saying that the actual software is not the most important cost with regards to software.

[ITRebel]

Knick,

This openness is also a liability as we now discover by some of the legal cases being won by opponents of open source software as reviewed in a recent Ivy League Law Review article (Cornell Law Review, Huang is the author). I am sure that most developers of open source have integrity like you. However, there are a few like MSSlayer (see above) and his type who openly brag about their ability to pirate other's trade secrets into their open source code. When they act upon their malicious skillset, the end result is you get a legal maze of problems for the other 99% of open source developers who have integrity. The honest open source developers have to live with the legal implications of this hacked trade secret or code in their open source application. You need to depend upon 100% of people having integrity for an open source application that has long term legal viability. Unfortunately, that is too idealist for the real world.

[bodycoach2]

When I refer to Open Source, I like to call it, "Open for Peer Review". Microsoft and Apple's (1/2 of Apple's, at least) code is NOT open to peer review. Take the cases of the Breathlizer tester machines. The software code on those are not open to peer review. We, the public, are not able to question our accuser (the software code)- a fundamental right in our justice system.

I have no problem with proprietary software. But when government uses software, I prefer that the code be open to peer review.

The Total Cost of Ownership is a topic that can change with each situation, each software package, even with each user. But not being able to review the code is something we cannot afford.

[xcal78]

Long as your footing the bill for all the extra costs incurred above what Windows would have costed the government go right ahead. I'm not interested in spending 2-3 times more for a new system just because. Open source is open your wallet. Research what's involved in a system switch of any kind. See if you can find a TCO vs ROI chart for an OS switch that proves you get a better TCO and when the ROI is from Windows to anything else. It doesn't exist so you'll be looking for a long time.

[adelie42]

@xcal78: Cost of change? If you are totally dependent on Microsoft for training and maintenance of your business, then actually taking responsibility for your systems is going to be a big reality check, and just as you did with Microsoft, if you need someone else to make these changes for you, not only is there going to be a diminished benefit, but it is going to cost you. Low end MS tech support is very cheap; they are everywhere. Linux support... different. Not as many Linux people sitting around with nothing to do, AND with so much documentation for open source software also being free, and with so many forums, and advanced howto's for everything, anything left is going to require a guru. This is where there is big money. There is also money for large scale startup, which is more of less and should be an initial training (otrherwise what do you do if/when it breaks?)

The real problem and expense is an issue of management. Microsoft makes it as easy as possible for people to get locked in by the promise of doing all the work for you. With Linux, there is an expectation for people to take some initiative either by learning it yourself, or hiring someone to remember it all. Fortunately this is easy because for the most part, there is primary or third party documentation that is easy to follow and understand. But like with anything else, if you don't try, you are going to pay for it. Between all the people that read the documentation and made an effort and are seeking expert help for a few pieces, they are going to pay the same price for support per hour as you to be hand held through everything.

So average TCO is very misleading, and even median TCO makes some bad assumptions. How about look at the range of TCO and listen and take advice from those that were able to do successful implementations. Listen to what worked and didn't work. When you look for advice, do you want the average story, or the most common story? Of course not! You want to know cost / effort of what works + cost of worst possible scenario. Using this information, you can decide what resources are important to invest in to reduce business expenses. Microsoft, Apple, Red Hat, and Sun want to offer you total business solutions. The first two specialize in simplicity, but at the expense of flexibility and diversification among others. Within those two elements, OSS typically offers modularity, and for the greatly ambitious, well documented code that is easy to add onto, whereas Microsoft and Apple limit you to API's that can't be audited (for whatever that is worth).

A better government I thought Americans appreciated was the idea of participation by the people. Even if most people choose not to participate, the opportunity for all to become active political members has always had a high value. While well managed use of F/OSS has survived the FUD, even if t was more expensive, isn't there an obligation in the digital age to support transparent government through open standards? It is not impossibly expensive to enable our best and brightest to keep us aware of the way things are working, and allow any American to become one of those people?

There is no way this discussion would even be taking place if Microsoft were not an American company. Why? because there is no way we are going to give that away! Why should we take what should be given to the American people and give it exclusive to one very small American company. Sorry, but Microsoft is very small when you consider opening opportunity for all.

The only counter argument is "Just sell out because I don't care". Well, you know what? I don't buy that! The Internet is an example of what can be built on free open source software and open standards. ATM, token-ring, and mainframe systems are what came from proprietary software, which gave us great opportunities to get off the ground. TCP/IP packet switched networks were evolution and birth of digital freedom and ultimately the Internet.

Government is ready to move forward.

[fazalmajid]

I agree that mandating open-source is not good policy, however mandating a procurement process that picks the lowest cost solution in the interests of good stewardship of taxpayers' money is. In my experience not only is Windows' license price unsupportable given the availability of high-quality alternatives such as Ubuntu or OpenSolaris, but the TCO of Windows is also significantly higher because of its unreliability and poor manageability compared to UNIX-based solutions that do not depend on monstrosities like the Registry. Legacy apps and apps beyond simple productivity should be virtualized and accessed from RDP of VNC connections.

Inmost cases, it does not make sense to replace existing aint-broke-yet systems just for the sake of open-source or even cost reductions. There are natural replacement points where this can happen more effectively, as long as the IT teams have had time to prepare.

I thought President Obama was going to appoint a Federal CTO. That person should be the one making the decision and setting up the supporting teams, planning, training and processes to make it happen. There is plenty of good learning from case studies in South America and Europe that could be applicable.

[xcal78]

Do reasearch on TCO on an existing system vs TCO on implimenting a new system. Staying with Windows as it's the current system is far more effective in the short and long run. The OS provides little ROI between the different ones so change is going to to cost a heavy premium. If someone can prove to the Obama administration that a system switch provides a fair ROI with a better TCO then we'll switch but that won't happen. I've done way way too many system upgrades, changes, etc. to know how it really works in business.

[Dalkorian]

by xcal78 January 22, 2009 1:38 PM PST
I've done way way too many system upgrades, changes, etc. to know how it really works in business.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

ROFLMAO!

Oh please, stop ... my sides are hurting!

[xcal78]

Anyday you want to compare experience let me know Dalkorian. I can't stand high schoolers thinking they are all high and mighty.

[jwrgorman]

A project that combines open source with renewable energy:

http://www.picogrid.org/

[Dingus9]

I guess I am forced to ask the question, why is this the presidents decision, we are in a democracy. If the mandate would only cover his executive branch operations, then it makes sense to begin a switch. However it would seem unfair to require all executive employees to use a specific set of software, if and only if another equivalent product was more usable, or more preferred. I can't imagine what the repercussions would do to all of the current executive branches some examples being the IRS, FCC and law enforcement, who all rely on technologies to function. Just look at the scramble the FCC's mandate of digital broadcast stations has caused(pro digital.) Now imagine that across all US government computer systems Nation and World wide! Maybe a more gradual approach would be advisable? What ever the decision, maybe the debate of intellectual property and open source will finally get "Noticed" by elected officials.

[ChipAndre]

It is not necessarily the President's decision on a case-by-case basis, but it IS up to the President to set guidelines that should be followed by the people who do make the case-by-case decisions. It is VERY important that these guidelines be well thought out, or there could be massive problems.

For example, the Bush administration decided early on that it wanted to do away with the (perfectly functional) Lotus Notes based email system that Clinton had been using. Instead of examining their options, they went with the Biggest Name in the industry, and switched to Outlook and Exchange. They never bothered to look into whether or not this setup was secure or would actually be able to do what they needed it to do. The result: thousands (or millions, depending on who you ask) of emails that have gone "missing".

Open source alternatives may or may not have provided a better solution, but TAKING THE TIME TO EXAMINE ALL THE OPTIONS certainly would have led to SOMETHING more appropriate. The fact that Bush demanded that the system be changed without doing any research caused that particular debacle. Obama taking the time to examine his options and set guidelines based on research and expert opinion shows that he's far more aware of the importance of IT.