Why Isn't Open Source Even Considered at the U.S. State Government Level?

by Sam Dean - Apr. 15, 2009Comments (3)

Earlier this month, Computerworld reported on the Texas state Senate banning Windows Vista from use in government agencies. Specifically, Senator Juan Hinojosa proposed the ban because "of the many reports of problems with Vista." Microsoft officials reacted angrily, saying "we're surprised that the Texas Senate Finance Committee adopted a rider which, in effect, singles out a specific corporation and product for unequal treatment." Hinojosa has proposed Windows XP and the upcoming Windows 7 as alternatives, but why wasn't moving to an open source solution even considered? That's the gist of an interesting letter sent to Hinojosa, and here are some of the good points it makes.

In Ken Starks' letter to Senator Hinojosa, (Starks is a Linux lobbyist), he writes this, referring to the option of switching state government offices to Linux and open source solutions:

"The state of Texas is paying tens of millions of dollars a year to Microsoft when they have a free, virus-free and stable alternative at their fingertips, literally. Sir, let me pose a question. Why does the state of Texas insist on purchasing a product that proves to be more expensive to maintain than it does to purchase? Anti-virus software, defrag and registry fixers, malware protection...why? Why are we paying for software that demands we purchase other software in order for it to work? That is a question that I would honestly like answered."

According to Texas Department of Information Resources data the state has already spent many millions on Windows Vista deployments and maintenance across more than 40 agencies. Starks' letter points out that governments around the world are switching to open source, and the Obama administration is pursuing open source at the federal government level as well.

One thing that really jumped out at me from Starks' letter is that he singles out malware, viruses, disk defragging, and other common Windows problems as creating cost centers for any Windows deployment. It is true that open source platforms are far less targeted by hackers than the Windows platform, and thus there is far less of a cost center created for the "other software" that Starks mentions.

Of course, these are only some of the issues involved in switching state agencies to open source. There are support and training issues, compatibility issues with existing applications, and more. Still, it's one thing to debate a switch to open source, and it's another thing to not even consider it as an alternative at all. This could well be an instance of a problem I've mentioned before: Open source needs better evangelists.

Previous: How Will Novell and ...Next: Google Summer of Cod... Browse Blog

by Mark Reyer on Apr. 16, 2009

I have been in the Data Center business for 25 years plus and recently spent the last 3 years in State Government. The short answer to the question is absolutely Open Source needs better evangelism in State Government. Like any IT executive/manager, there is a natural fear to change what is working, even if it's not working well. That's true. I find that IT managers need the real world assurance from evangelist who have "been there done that" to feel comfortable looking at open source solutions.

The bigger obstacle are State Legislatures and the Executive Branches. That is where lobbying and business associations bend the ear - and yes contribute to campaigns - of elected officials about potential pitfalls of Open Source. Lets face it, system integrators, consulting shops, and the like are often small local businesses with a vested interest in commercial products. Then you have the invisible hand (some might say heavy hand) of the commercial hardware and software companies.

Lets face it, an open source evangelist just doesn't have the resources nor the numbers to go against the commercial interests. Without the support of elected officials, how many state IT bureaucrats would be willing to embrace the widespread adoption of Open Source solutions? This is a big issue. In my opinion there are three strategies to address this issue: First, implement open source systems in a stealth, under the radar mode; Second, consolidate the lobbying efforts of open source and open standards to focus on State elected officials; and Third - somewhat related to the first - build open source solutions at the city and county level. With that three pronged attack, it might be possible to demonstrate to State Governments that open source solutions can be a winning proposition.

Mark Reyer

www.reyer.com

0 Votes

by Sam Dean on Apr. 16, 2009

@ Mark, thanks for the insight, obviously based on experience. I agree that stealth installations of open source could be a good start. More and more departmental-level workers are deploying open source, as Sun has confirmed. It's at least a start.

Sam

0 Votes

by Marc Roberson on Apr. 23, 2009

As someone who has worked on the commercial side of software for more years than I care to admit, I have to say that making the move to Open Source Solutions was a no brainer. I worked for two very large companies that supplied proprietary systems for libraries around the world. The cost of maintenance was so high that libraries were literally closing their doors to keep their systems under a maintenance contract that just kept increasing. Our solutions save them sometimes 70% or more allowing libraries to do what they do best: give patrons ubiquitous access to stable, safe, customizable technology.

In this "recession" there is no excuse for not exploring the alternatives. To do so would be a breach of fiduciary responsibility to the community as a whole.

As for stealth installations of OSS..... if you are using Firefox, your're using open source. If you're using Apache, you're using open source... now the next step is Open Office and more specialized applications that can truly save big bucks and make a difference at the same time!

0 Votes