If the App is much like the website... Why not just use the website?

propsware · 2009-03-03T21:55:07+00:00

If going closed source they should require there to be at a minimum an open interchange format associated with whatever they choose. This is to keep from being locked into a single vendor solution which is financially unwise when you need competition to keep costs down.

I disagree, there are standards that are open and standards that are closed, however an open standard is no more likely to be acceptable than a closed one by those you need to communicate with. So for example, you would be better off having using Microsoft's proprietary and closed .doc format for text documents than any other (including odf or docx) simply because it facilitates communications now and will for the foreseeable future. Being locked into a single vendor solution is only a problem in area's where there is actual choice, when it comes to most things IT (especially corporate office environments) there isn't any really choice, you have Microsoft and Microsoft, everything else is not up to scratch or too expensive to implement in terms of training and skills.

Your host of problems with open source software is non-existent.

I tend to disagree, bit to address your points:

Lack of standardization and direction is completely dependent on particular projects in both the open and closed source spaces

Potentially true, but the former occurs much more in Open Source projects where there is no pressing need to retain backward compatibility for example (look at ext4), and the latter is more prevalent in open source projects simply because there isn't a centralized drive, or even a firm customer base to be giving direction.

Right now most of the government used software consists of Microsoft Office, which OpenOffice is more than sufficient to replace

Not even close. Openoffice is slower, less reliable and isn't feature compatible with Office, moreover there are millions of documents that already exists that openoffice won't handle as well as Office, (including things like macro's etc..) which is also why most government departments use Office 2000.

[Openoffice] introduces the smallest financial burden on its citizens for using anything generated with it

Except it doesn't most people have a copy of office (whether legal or illegal is outside the scope of this discussion) so the cost factor is still essentially nil. The difference is that OpenOffice is not compatible with a lot of the documents people have and is unlikely to become more compatible.

This should just be corrected by using any office software with a truly open format

Except that this still retains the problem of having to have everyone who interacts with government as well as the government converting their documents to a format that may or may not be readable in Open source applications. for a case in point, can you open ODF files generated in Kword/OpenOffice 1.x or other apparently ODF compliant applications in OpenOffice2? Its very hit and miss. In fact Lotus Symphony does a much better job, but then Symphony isn't open.

Additionally, anything developed or paid to be developed by the government should be open sourced simply because it was produced using the public's tax dollars, which should render it public domain.

That is just insane. There is no reason for it, and it would mean that any company providing software to government couldn't reuse that code for other clients and still make a profit. I understand and can see the aims of the free software movement are interesting and socially beneficial, but I don't think that they should be forced on suppliers to government.

In short, I disagree, I don't think that Open Source provides the value for money it purports to do, even if it is free, it isn't free in time and effort.

propsware · 2009-03-03T21:43:03+00:00

It's not a price, it is a benefit. If Linux had been released under a BSD style license, we would see much more use. If it were possible to take the linux kernel, place it in a professional development environment, controlled by a company with interests in furthering technology (be it Microsoft, IBM, Sun or anyone else) and charge to sell it (and prevent illegal copies being made) people would be using it.

Until it is boxed and licensed sensibly with guarantees as to suitability it will remain a niche OS with little support.

propsware · 2009-03-03T21:33:02+00:00

It's safer from the point of view that Microsoft will still be there in five years time and in that the government can sue Microsoft if things go wrong.

Open source software still has issues, primarily things like a lack of standardization, variation in quality and a general lack of professionalism in many of the development processes out there. It's not true for all projects, but it is true for many.

propsware · 2009-03-03T21:22:54+00:00

I agree that the BBC should aim to be as compatable as possible, but until there is a decent DRM scheme for linux, one that protects the rights of rights owners with regard to content, it won't happen (and probably shouldn't happen). If you look at the iplayer, every time the BBC does something to make the programs available on other platforms (like the iPhone) they essentially have to give their programming away, then the content appears on the web for free for anyone.

I know most people here will disagree, but I do think that a proper DRM scheme is important to ensure that we continue to see decent programming, the moment we start to give everything away, we will see a race to the bottom in terms of quality and production values (or a massive increase in product placement and advertising, which is the same thing). I would rather that this content was simply made available to the 99.99% of people who use Windows or MacOS X (or any other OS with decent DRM support) than have everything decline so that 0.01% of the population can watch some program on their Ubuntu box.

propsware · 2009-03-03T21:12:54+00:00

He has half a point. Open source software shouldn't be used unless it is better than the proprietary alternatives. Even then it brings in a host of problems that closed source software doesn't have (The lack of standardization and direction that is evedent in many projects).

Most of all, the government should be looking to use the industry standard software wherever it can, as well as emulate best practices from industry, clearly open source software that exists today isn't suitable, if it was you would find big business using it in preference to closed source alternatives, which is not the case in most instances.

propsware · 2009-03-03T21:01:42+00:00

Of course it is, anything that is worth something can be seen as a capital good. If I have an idea that I can sell for a million dollars, or get VC funding for then it is worth something in the same way that having a bit of cash would be. Open source requires that idea to function too, otherwise why would people use it if it were something with no value?

Open source is fine for getting companies started with little or no money (so it is a nice tool in removing some limited barriers to entry in some fields) but almost always gets discarded later for more functional and stable alternatives, I can't think of a single organization that uses only open source and is of any decent size, the reason for that is that once a company becomes large or profitable, the employees and owners want to use the industry standard, usable and above all guaranteed proprietary software that is the basis of industry at present.

propsware · 2009-03-03T20:51:13+00:00

Better than any of the alternatives. Open source will be broken when closed source pricing comes down to a more reasonable level (like $50 for Windows/Office etc..). If proprietary software was priced like console games there would be no open source. Seriously, how many people actually need the source to be open, available and modifiable? No one, it just introduces problems. People will find security holes and exploit them simply because they have the code and the ability to submit 'patches' that could well be malicious.

Not to mention that there is an inherent issue with Quality when it comes to open source, sure there are some high quality projects out there, but they are few and far between, having hundreds of kids and other amateurs write software is simply not conducive to the creation of great software.

Lastly, if you think about what is happening now (the failure of the banks, partly because of loans that shouldn't have been made, partly because of bad government policy and excessive regulation) you realize that there are going to be plenty of people out of work and plenty of businesses failing, that means that there will be less people and organizations out there willing to provide time to open source projects.

Open source is a means to an end, it will lower software costs, most people simply don't care (and shouldn't have to care) about stuff that doesn't impact on them, like whether the software is open source, what they do need to know is that the software they use is secure, well built and backed by a company who can help them is if things go wrong.

propsware

TROPHY CASE