Comments on: Government levels the playing field for Open Source

By: dreamingspire

dreamingspire — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:52:38 +0000

Open source is great for many purposes, but for serious public services, particularly those handling personal data, there is still a huge gap between today’s practice and the need to comply with first Data Protection and then that never implemented Cabinet Office Information Assurance policy (service quality and infosec). Get that policy out of its locked cabinet, Tom, get some competent people in to update it to cover not just on-line services but also passports, ID cards, transport ticketing, citizen service cards, health systems… Then give it to an enlarged Information Commissioner to police it under tough legislation that requires formal quality and security assessment of the organisations that deliver the services. Get the public sector out of its 1970 mentality into at least the late 1990s and then keep it moving: training, training, training, assessment, assessment, assessment. I hear that even SOCITM members are getting very worried about the general inability of our public sector to deliver the necessary quality of software and service management…

By: Math Campbell

Math Campbell — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:15:39 +0000

Good call. I don’t often agree with Labour, but this is a good move forwards.
Mandating the usage of OSS where it meets the requirements over proprietary software would be better though. Why should we, the taxpayer, give money to (often overseas) companies for no actual tangible benefits. We don’t keep the rights, the source, all actual benefits stay with the company we pay. Often we’ll be socked in via closed structures (Office .doc is just the icebergs snarly tip)….

Better that wherever possible, OSS should be used when it meets the required spec. (assuming said spec. isn’t “Is Windows”). Think of the billions of pounds it would save. Sure, there will still be wastage in the form of the consultant that pulls in far more than they should (something no one can explain to me; why a consultant gets paid more than the line-guys that often know just as much), but all them licensing costs will be gone, so you can still hire consultants and specialists galore (which will no doubt be “vital” since it’s all “different” now…puleeese!), and still come in under budget.

Best of all, if HM Govt. create a source-management Agency to manage all officially used open-source, and put back into the community, the UK could be a leading light in the OSS world, which you might think will interest and excite only nerds like me, basking in the rays of their tft monitors in some basement somewhere, but actually a lot of BIG companies in IT are moving towards OSS, and if the UK had a large, stable workforce that have OSS skills and credentials, that could work in our favour when said companies are choosing locations….

What more could a government ask for? It’s “hip”, it saves them money, it might help create jobs, and it’s spending money in the UK that’d otherwise go overseas…
Where’s the downside?

By: Dan Williams

Dan Williams — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:53:13 +0000

http://publications.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=25907

By: Dan Williams

Dan Williams — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:52:33 +0000

I think Becta have already concluded (as many of you have) that the total cost of ownership makes it hardly any more attractive that the proprietary stuff… in schools at least.

By: man and van

man and van — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 09:32:41 +0000

Lets just hope its going to work and stop being so pesimistic about it. If its not going trough a big coorporation than whoever gets it better deliver the results we all wait for!

By: Joe Anderson

Joe Anderson — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 21:11:51 +0000

Get Becta to push it. If open-source is used in school, businesses and governmental organisations will have to follow as their workforce will be familiarised with non-commercial software.

Good luck, though. I suspect many people in the public sector will dislike open-source, as they are only comfortable with Microsoft.

By: Mike

Mike — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 19:03:00 +0000

Its all very well requiring the use of Open Source, however this is only a small part of the whole cost. There will still be billions wasted in ‘consultants’ and ‘contractors’ for every little job and feature request when it would be far cheaper to pay the community to do it. I doubt that many of these companies will roll back any changes they make to the software, preferring to simply keep them to themselves.

I also don’t think it will help budget starved schools and colleges that can’t afford to hire these consultants and simply need help in their implementation and maintenance. Will there be any push to help these underfunded organisations to get help from the community? I doubt it.

So overall, nothing will really change… the big consultancies will still get the money and the only thing that really changes will be original source of the software and the small gov funded projects and schools will still be starved of help.

By: Dave William

Dave William — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 23:59:36 +0000

Love the idea and but it’s laughable when someone says we sell free software. How can you sell free software? Free is free – i.e. no monies are exchanged. Who are they kidding? These companies make money from OSS, by providing a service such as advice, installation and support. I will be honest say I mainly make my living this way (I do some proprietary stuff). Just like everyone in this business I like to lock my clients to my services just as a proprietary company would do for their software.

@Mo Wouldn’t it be great if every docs were in XML/HTML?

By: Phillip

Phillip — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:32:07 +0000

I agree with Mo, there are two separate issues: using open source software, and storing data in an open format. The latter should be mandatory for government. It should not be possible for a sole supplier to hold government data hostage. Look at the way Microsoft obliges departments to upgrade their OS and copies of Word. If nobody has a PDF reader in 20 years it does not matter so much as it is an open format. Even OpenOffice can import PDF these days. However if it is in an encoded binary blob then that data is lost.

Open Source software is a different matter. There are two advantages corresponding to the two freedoms it gives. The first is free as in beer. There are no licensing costs, and you can do support in-house or you can pay a 3rd party for support. Saving millions is no bad thing, but the real importance for government is free as in speech. Need a special feature? You can add it yourself. The original developers have disappeared but you still need the software and there is a bug? You have the source so you can fix it. The government starts having different needs to the original developers? Fork a copy and it is now all yours.

The government could also sponsor open source projects, much like Google do at the moment. I quite happily pay for open source software to be written if it is something I need but it does not give me a particular competitive advantage. Sharing the cost of fixing bugs and adding the features is worth more than keeping the code proprietary. I am sure the government is in the same position.

You may find this an interesting read by the way:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/how-hijack-eu-open-source-strategy-paper

Phillip.

By: Mary

Mary — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 20:37:12 +0000

Well done Tom. Working for a small social enterprise that doesn’t have loads of dosh to pay for proprietary software Open Office, and other open source software, has been an absolute boon.