Wow, these are all excellent points that I didn't even consider when I sent in my last post. However, it is also true that even without having the source handy, an organization with enough resources can do stack traces and network monitoring to make sure no spyware or anything exists in a product. In any case, yes, open source would save the government a lot in strict software purchase price and it may have many other good effects. However, there are a few things that might be lacking. I think if a proprietary solution is by far the best solution, it should still be used after some testing. But here are some examples of problems that could arise:
1. If every worker had to adopt open source software, the retraining costs would be horrendous. I work essentially taking calls from people with computer problems, and I can tell you that the average user out there does not learn new computer concepts easily. Furthermore, due to a lot of social welfare types of legislation, a lot of government workers aren't exactly the top of society. There are some very intelligent people who work for the government, but the government also makes up a lot of silly positions for people who would otherwise be unemployed. 2. If the current sysadmins of government servers are not qualified for unix servers, there would need to be massive restructuring and rehiring in every IT department. ...I have to do EE homework... All of these issues could probably be resolved by a very slow adaptation of open source software, with bills starting at "new software solutions should strongly consider open source as a viable option" to eventually (like 10 years from now) "open standards and open source software shall be the only option allowed in government." -Eric Hattemer On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 15:44, James A. Stroble wrote: > On Sun, 2002-10-13 at 11:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > I agree with Warren 100% on this one. It is silly to say that open > > source would be competing on its own merits if you force everyone to use > > it. That's a dictatorship of sorts. Its like saying Sadam Housein is a > > great leader because he is *the* leader of Iraq. > > Now I haven't looked at the proposed legislation, so everything I am > about to say is protected by profound ignorance. It seems to me that the > issue in requiring open source software has very little to do with > techical merits, and everything to do with politics. This is the main > source of dispute between the Open Source movement and the Free Software > folks. A government has a responsiblity to provide information to its > citizens, and this means at the least that such information cannot be > tied up in proprietary formats. As well, a government must be able to > ascertain the integrity of the data it uses, which again means that it > should have access to the source code of the programs that process that > data. It is not surprising that other countries are leary of being tied > to proprietary software that may contain backdoors, spyware, etc., when > they are not allowed to examine the code for themselves. > Forcing the use of open source software in the interest of freedom is > no different from requiring corporations to open their books and to be > subject to audits: no doubt it would be more efficient to just trust > them, but there is a public interest that overrides efficiency. I think > we should prefer open source to closed code even if it is technically > inferior, not that it is! > -- > **************************;~) > * James (Andy) Stroble > * Honolulu, HI > * > * http://www2.hawaii.edu/~stroble/ > * > > > c. 39 "No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, > or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, > or in any way destroyed nor shall we go against him > or send against him unless by legal judgment of his > peers or by the law of the land." > John, king of England 1199-1216 > Magna Carta 1215 > > _______________________________________________ > LUAU mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://videl.ics.hawaii.edu/mailman/listinfo/luau >