[aclug-L] Re: open source in state governments

[Tom Hull <thull2@xxxxxxx>]

jeffrey l koehn wrote:
> On Saturday 15 March 2003 08:33 pm, you wrote:
> 
>>Texas and Oregon now have a bill in the Legislature to require
>>the consideration of open source and
>>open standards as part of the acquisition of software. Texas and
>>Oregon, like many other states, has a budget crisis going on.

For whatever it's worth, here's most of the letter that I wrote to
ksworks AT ksgovernor.com back last November 15, when Sebelius was
inviting citizen suggestions on how to save Kansas budget money.
I never got a comment, response, etc. (other than an autoreply).

   Hi,

   Since you're looking for Budget Efficiency Savings, I'd like to
   point out that the State of Kansas is currently spending millions
   of dollars on closed-source, per-machine-licensed software, which
   in many cases could easily be replaced with open-source, free
   software. Moreover, the costs of such closed-source software far
   exceed the license costs and its inevitable upgrade license costs.
   Because the source code to such software is restricted, you have
   to buy support and training from its vendors -- a non-competitive
   market which can calibrate its prices to the pain of not buying.
   Such software also prevents you from making modifications to fix
   problems, to add useful features, to eliminate bogus features.
   And because only the proprietor has access to the source code,
   such software tends to have more defects, which are fixed more
   slowly (usually in tandem with the introduction of new defects,
   er, features). But even beyond what you pay for licenses, upgrades,
   support, training, etc., there are huge hidden costs in time lost,
   aggravation, and lost opportunities.

   Such closed-source, per-machine-licensed software has in fact
   worked so poorly that many thousands of people all around the
   world have volunteered their time and brains to build alternative
   software around the open-source/free software model. In this
   model, the software is distributed as complete source code under
   licenses which permit users to install the software on as many
   machines as they wish, to modify the software to fit their needs,
   and to redistribute their modifications to other users. One of
   the most important aspects of this is that free software tends
   to be developed by the users of that software, so it meets their
   needs rather than the needs of proprietors to maximize their
   profits on licenses, support, and upgrades. This has resulted
   in thousands of free software programs, including suitable
   alternatives for most of the commercial software that Kansas
   currently pays for.

   I should also point out that these same excessive costs that the
   State of Kansas has paid are also suffered by local government
   and by most businesses and private citizens in the state. Given
   that the free software approach is that when you build a program
   to solve a problem, you can then freely deploy it anywhere, it
   should be obvious that any efforts that the State of Kansas makes
   to free itself from the yoke of closed-source, per-machine-licensed
   software will produce benefits that go beyond the budget efficiency
   of state government -- they will help government throughout Kansas
   do better work for less cost, and will help Kansas industry do the
   same. It should also be pointed out that to the extent that state
   government in Kansas does the same or similar things as other state
   governments, open-source solutions that any state develops will be
   reusable by all -- which presents opportunities for collaborative
   work that go far beyond our own state boundary and budget.

   Still, moving from proprietary software to free software will
   require some real leadership from your team. The best example
   of why this is the case is the buying process: with proprietary
   software companies send sales representatives to your door to
   analyze your needs (e.g., measure your budget) and make their
   sales pitches (which often include ideas for expanding your
   budget), then assuage your doubts by assuring you that their
   company stands behind their software and will solve all your
   problems (for a price, of course). The effect of this is that
   the buyer is passive, inadequately informed, and dependent --
   all of which are conducive to spending a lot of money and not
   really getting what you want or need. This contrasts starkly
   with open-source software, which hardly anyone sells (there's
   not a lot of margin on free), and which is normally deployed
   only when someone knowledgeable takes the initiative to get and
   install and maintain the software. (This happens surprisingly
   often, in part because free software doesn't have to be budgeted,
   but mostly because it helps people do their jobs better.) In
   order for Kansas to shift from mostly buying proprietary software
   to mostly using free software, you will need to provide more
   effective technical support to help users identify their needs,
   qualify the right solutions, and train and maintain them while
   breaking the dependency on proprietary vendors.

   There is much more that can be added to this, and I'd be happy
   to discuss this and try to answer any questions you might have.

One problem with this approach is that a lot of the emphasis here
is on making government (local, as well as state) more efficient
and effective, as opposed to just saving money. And as far as
saving money is concerned, it's more of a long-term proposition
than a short-term one. The actual list that Sebelius came out
with was more along the lines of don't do this or that pork
barrel project.

I think what's actually going to happen is that somewhere some
middle-level state bureaucrats are going to get the open source
bug and start experimenting with open source solutions. I.e.,
they're going to come in through the back door where they can
work around the budget process, rather than come in through
anything like legislation. I imagine that there are actually
some examples of this -- I vaguely remember something about
Fargo, ND. We might be able to nudge that process along a bit,
if anyone can identify some government mandarins who might like
to experiment with open source solutions. The big problem, of
course, is that open source means more DIY, and that's not a
skill or culture that particularly thrives in government. That's
a big part of the reason why I see a need to build some sort
of support infrastructure within government, which isn't an
immediately attractive proposition for budget slashers. So I
don't know exactly where to start, but it would certainly be
a start to learn more about how much money is spent on what
software for what requirements.

> Even if these bills pass in Texas and Oregon and even though
> all states are in a budget crisis, all indications are that most if 
> not all state governments will continue to follow the M$ road
> to hell for the next couple of years. It took a while for this
> progression to happen and it will take some time to reverse
> this process.
> *Common Sense* is scarse these days.
> I think after Linux and Open Source has moved well into businesses,
> banking, manufacturing, etc, then state governements will be
> in a panic to do something which of course will cost a lot of money
> because they will have to hire the ones who have been in touch
> with the changing times.
> Of course I could be wrong, and people in state governments
> all of a sudden see the light.
> On the other hand, the direction that Microsoft is taking
> and the proliferation of the Linux GPL'd Kernel and
> GPL'd Open Source Apps which are contributed 
> and improved by Universities, Businesses, Individuals, 
> Manufacuring,etc, lead me to believe that in the end
> the business/tech model of the future will be using GPL'd
> software as the *base architecture* on which to build, use and
> manufacture products which will in turn may or may not
> be proprietary. This of course is starting to happen so
> there are many people that have come to this conclusion
> but I don't think it is well documented because most businesses/
> people in this country want to be ahead of the game
> and be the first/best in a new market of products services.
>  I'm sure there is somebody on this list or in a University who
> can/has put this into better words.
> 
> jeffrey l koehn

-- 
/*
  *  Tom Hull * thull2 at cox.net * http://www.tomhull.com/
  */

-- This is the discussion@xxxxxxxxx list.  To unsubscribe,
visit http://www.complete.org/cgi-bin/listargate-aclug.cgi