Why McNealy is the Right Open Source Champion, and Why it Matters
by Sam Dean - Jan. 28, 2009Comments (0)- Related Blog Posts
- Will Open Source Support Providers Ride a Government Gravy Train?
- U.S. Defense Department Cozies Up to Open Source
- A New Appeal to Obama to Support FOSS
- More Mudslinging in the MySQL Debate
- Oracle's and Sun's Top Guns Reassure the Sun Faithful
Ever since the news broke that President Obama has requested a paper from Sun Chairman Scott McNealy on how the government could best use open source technologies, opinions have been flying around about whether McNealy is the right guy, whether open source is the right prescription, and more. Having followed McNealy for years, I think he will make better arguments than some people in the open source community think he will. It's also apparent that some people misunderstand the incredible opportunity the government has to reboot its infrastructure with open source technology.
Scott McNealy is a rebel. During his years as CEO of Sun, he often fought a losing battle against Microsft, but he fought charismatically, spoke eloquently, and was very early to predict that Microsoft would become a dangerous monopoly. He deeply understands issues pertaining to vendor lock-in, cost benefits of open source, and he helped move along many important open source projects. I think he can probably make a cogent argument for open source in the government, and perhaps it will be more cogent than a manifesto from one of the many gearheads who might have been drafted to deliver a paper to Obama.
On another note, some people seem to be misunderstanding the benefits the government could get from going open source (and many other governments around the world are doing so). The issue is not just immediate cost savings, because there would be costs to implement and support a significant open source infrastructure. ChannelWeb has an interesting quote from consultant John Locke:
"The real benefit of using open-source providers is that you're not locked into a single vendor for ongoing maintenance, and solutions that are developed in one place can be easily reused in others," Locke said.
Exactly. Being free from vendor lock-in means just that: being free. The government would face less pricing pressure and have more choices in the future with an open source infrastructure. That's the bottom line.Â
Comments
Share Your Comments
