Open source 'too costly' for Irish e-gov??

patto_chan

Post this either here or in Politics maybe?

From the Register
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/04/30/irish_government_open_source/

Coincidence maybe that this direction was presented at a conference sponsored by Microsoft?
Didn't Munich's government opt for open source?

oscarBravo

The open source software movement, meanwhile, is not focused on pushing common technical standards, although many in the movement support such initiatives. Open source backers aim to create a market where software code is open to development and modification, which can in some instances undermine interoperability.

Is it just me, or does this quite simply ring false? An example that springs to mind is Jabber - it's not just an IM platform, it's a process to develop an open standard in instant messaging and presence.

Mind you, I'm not surprised at gov.ie's rejection of open source - they're probably terrified Microsoft would up sticks and head for Poland/Latvia/Cyprus/...

theciscokid

the sales end are moving anyways, ok the european NOC is still there in sandyford , but only renting as usual, M$ never buy a building they work from in Ireland

eircom would be at a loss , they host 600 of their servers in their citywest NOC

roll out the open source quickly

weebrat

I think what they're trying to get at is that "open standards" are more important to them, although they come out sounding fairly negative on open source.

Take this example, in 20 years time you put in a Freedom of Information request for all documents relating to the e-voting scandal of 2004. All the documents are in MS Word 2003 format, which at that time requires you license the appropriate MS patent to read it. Whereas an open XML based file format like the OpenOffice.org one doesn't have this problem. See http://sdec.reach.ie/faq/rigs/whyOpenOffice/ for their take on that.

An open source application doesn't necessarily have a documented, open file format, nor does it necessarily have longevity. The same goes for other interoperability standards that they're interested in - protocols, APIS, etc.

That said, it may well be true that open source applications are more likely to use open standards, so with that as their pre-requisite, many open source solutions should be up at the top of the list when it comes to them picking implementations.

Now there are other areas where open source licensing may make sense that they don't seem to be gone for it. I see they've copyrighted the interoperability protocols they're defining for the Public Services Broker. I thought the EU was trying to encourage governments to open source products of initiatives of this, so that each government doesn't keep on reinventing the wheel....

Maybe this does belong in politics...

dmd

I think this wasn't bad news at all. Use open source where you think it fits, it won't fit everywhere, that's fine, really.

Open standards is the key here, which means at a later date, somebody CAN put in open source solutions, open standards is the key to the future of putting in open source solutions, as well as reducing overall money invested for upgrades, or adding to systems in general.

Typedef

Point a:

Word is not an Open Standard.

Point b:

Microsoft is attempting to patent certain XML schemas, so guess what... only Microsoft applications will be able to read those schemas.

What's an Open Standard about that?

Nothing.

It's just Micro$oft buzzwords bandied about by people who know nothing about technology.

Between Minister Cullen 'wasting' fourty million Euro on an unimplementable E-Voting system in the face of a lexicon of IT experts telling him not to use it and Mary Hannafin, doing pretty much the same and making a hair brained decision to lock the State into Costly Microsoft software, one wonders... what other areas of the State economy is the government making idotic decisions al-la E-Voting and 'Open Standards-M$ (an oxymoron)' software usage.

There's no arguing with a politician who has suddenly appointed themselves IT experts supreme... best thing to do is have an independant comission tell them they're wrong.

As it happens, I think I'll email my TD about Mary Hannafin's closed source proposals for the State.

ZENER

"The long-term cost of open source may outweigh the short term savings," she said.

Didn't I read that in an add for M$ somewhere recently? Maybe the minister should © the phrase quickly to make some money for her . . er . . party !!

ZENER

albertw

Originally posted by Typedef
best thing to do is have an independant comission tell them they're wrong.

So have a comission tell them that what they have said is wrong? i.e they should be using computing systems that are not interoperable using closed protocols?

Having the government state that they plan to use open systems is a good thing for everyone. Going from an Australian government doc an open system `is a system of interacting components (software, hardware and human) with interface specifications that are fully defined, publicly available and maintained according to industry consensus.`

So now if you want to do business with the Irish Government your products will ned to be able to comminicate using standard industry defined protocols, and bcause of this other people will be able to write software to interact with it. This is specifically to ensure that the government does not get locked into M$, RHAT, IBM or anyone elses technologies.

Open systems is not a M$ buzzword and are nothing new, the phrase has been legitametly used a lot down the years www.opengroup.org. Some examples of open potocols: NFS (RFC 1094) specified by Sun in 1989 and open enough for everyone else to implement so that machines can share filesystems. , HTTP1.1 (RFC 2616) actually had someone from Microsoft on it. etc. In this sence the government backing open systems is good for everyone, and one of the better IT announcements they have had.

Its not anti-open source, there is nothing stopping you from writing an application under GPL that uses open protocols and selling it to the government. If you are willing to support and sustain that software then go for it.

Cheers,
~Al

nadir

i think you are missing typedefs point b, which is that if microsoft are allowed to patent code that utilises open standards and force that down everyones throats, then other groups source still wont be able to interface with microsfts implementation of that open standard. While NFS is all good and well, and open source support for it is freely available, that wouldnt be much good if (hypothetically) you had to be able to log onto a microsoft NFS server, whcih only accepted a particular implementation of that open standard.

weebrat

But I think it's relevant with respect to Typedef's point b that in the link I pointed to earlier, the government dept Reach had nothing to do with the patented XML document format that Microsoft is touting with Office 2003, but went for the OpenOffice XML document standard which is patent and royalty free. And is on it's way to being a major input to the OASIS effort to develop a proposed open, industry standard document format.

So in this instance at least one government agency appears to be doing the sensible thing.

Typedef

Yes but, the pertinent quote from Ms Hannafin was that quote "Open Standards" as opposed to "Open Source" would be in use by the government.

Since this particular buzzword has recently been coming from Microsoft, it's not particularly encouraging to hear the Minister parroting this.

Check it out, clueless non technical commentators giving pro-MS opinions and the Minister doing most the same thing... all at an MS sponsored conference.

http://www.enn.ie/frontpage/news-9410098.html

"The use of open standards is critical to the government's plans," she said. "But it is important to remember that open standards are not the same as open source." Minister Hanafin indicated that Ireland's e-government system, once fully constructed, needs to last for several decades and must therefore be upgradeable. "Using open standards gives us that option."

She added that the government had looked into the long-term cost of various architectures and had determined that using only open source software could, in the long run, be more expensive. "The long-term cost of open source may outweigh the short term savings," she said.

So according to the Minster, the TCO (a favoured Microsoft buzzword) is too much with Open Source Software!

Clearly the Minister has never administered a Website, or spoken to anybody who has, nor did the consultants who advised on this decision.

Between licensing fees, non-optional upgrades, unreliability and actual sales, I'm wondering how the Minster came to this conclusion, when compared against say, deploying Debian in the Server and Desktop environment?

Pick a number from the sky perhaps?

I'd actually like to see the study done with lead the Minster to parrot this MS TCO line on Open Source Software.

albertw

I think Linux folks can be a bit too dismissive of TCO. I havent seen a way to measure TCO for having your IT dept run Debian. You instal the machines then for example you need to employ (and keep) people to make it work, with no support guarnteed (explicitly not supplied by the GPL) from the OS and you need to have the expertiese in house for it to potentially be upgradeable for decades.

With a solution from M$, IBM, Sun etc. your contract will have support, a guarntee that if something goes wrong it will be back up in 3 hours, and it will have a total price tag. The governemnt lawyers and IT folks can also stipulate the upgrade requirements. Several large OS companies still support some old OS's for customers in this position.

Irionically today RHAT have announced the end of support for RHL9, and users are being directed to RHEL. So even one of the linux model companies is forcing an OS upgrade on its customers rather than supporting what it sold. Kinda like what we have criticised microsoft for in the past.

However, if you are willing to base a company on Debian, supply open source software to the government to accomplish what it needs, guarentee support and provide an upgrade plan etc, there is nothing in the Ministers announcement stopping you from doing so. But you still need to provide a plan and stand up to the contractual obligations. This is not the kind of environment where you can just install Linux on a server and leave it there.

For the specifics on the Ministers position I think we need to wait till the strategy document gets published. Hopefully that will help explain her comments on open source and TCO.

Cheers,
~Al

nadir

I think Linux folks can be a bit too dismissive of TCO. I havent seen a way to measure TCO for having your IT dept run Debian. You instal the machines then for example you need to employ (and keep) people to make it work, with no support guarnteed (explicitly not supplied by the GPL) from the OS and you need to have the expertiese in house for it to potentially be upgradeable for decades.

well first of all yes TCO is far to difficult to measure absolutely, it depends on the scenario, I dont like the way the "lack of profesional" support is considered a negative thing. Debian for example is different it supports itself, your system admin is your professional support, if managed properly by the company in question I would imagine the TCO would be much lower than a M$ setup. Microsoft are just using TCO as a tactic to scare people away from open source software, looking at the article in the Irish times magazine last weekend, as a microsoft defence, they refer to this article,
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2002/dec02/12-17TCOstudy.asp
however notice that this study is funded by Microsoft,
http://news.com.com/2100-1001-975938.html?tag=fd_top

So not only can you not measure the TCO of a debian setup, you also can not listen to the propoganda from M$.
But if you want good security and functionality, you will want to employ competent admins regardless of whether you have installed microsft windows or debian, so if you are going to fork out the cash for staff anyway, then debian will most certainly be a cheaper option.
I agree witht his guys take on it http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6862

With a solution from M$, IBM, Sun etc. your contract will have support, a guarntee that if something goes wrong it will be back up in 3 hours, and it will have a total price tag. .

Again id argue a good staff runing an opensource setup is as good a guarantee if something goes wong, "it will be back up in 3 hours", staffing costs are also a "total price tag"

Irionically today RHAT have announced the end of support for RHL9, and users are being directed to RHEL. So even one of the linux model companies is forcing an OS upgrade on its customers rather than supporting what it sold. Kinda like what we have criticised microsoft for in the past.

as for commercial linux well again id imagine they cost less to run as well although i have no figures to back this up. Whats the problem with upgrading from redhat 9 anyhow? Im not sure cause Ive never done it, do you have to pay them more? cause if so yea thats bad. I do however like the way redhat are supporting fedora, and allow you to migrate to fedora easily.

as for the government, why dont they make their own body to manage the computer requirements of the country, sureley its an important enough thing. It does unfortunately look like thay are being had by M$, but like you say I guess well just have to wait and see the final report.

matthiku

from: http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/TWB20040505S0008

Gartner: Worms Jack Up the Total Cost of Windows
May 5, 2004 (2:58 p.m. EST)
By Gregg Keizer, TechWeb News

Dealing with widespread worms like Sasser raises the cost of using Windows, a research analyst said Wednesday.

Mark Nicolett, research director at Gartner, recommended that enterprises boost spending on patch management and intrusion prevention software to keep ahead of worms, which are appearing ever sooner after vulnerabilities in Windows are disclosed.

“This is part of the carrying cost of using Windows,” said Nicolett. “The cost of a Windows environment has gone up because enterprises have to install security patches very rapidly, deal with outages caused by secondary problems with these patches, and deploy additional layers of security technology.”

Although he placed some caveats on his numbers, Nicolett said that informal surveys with Gartner clients indicate that simply moving from a no rapid patch deployment capability to an ongoing process that can respond quickly to vulnerabilities raises the cost of using business by about 15 percent.

...

read on!

dahamsta

Review of government OSS position urged
Friday, May 07 2004
by Matthew Clark

Cautionary comments from the Irish government regarding the use of Open Source software (OSS) are not in line with policy elsewhere in Europe, a group has said.

At the Irish Software Association's annual conference in Dublin last week, Information Society Minister Mary Hanafin indicated that since OSS is "open to amendment and reconfiguration," the long-term cost of using it in Irish e-government projects may be too great.

"I think it needs to be made clear that there is another side to this," responded Mel McIntyre, the managing director of Open Applications Consulting (OpenApp) and the chairman of Open Ireland, a non-profit advocacy group that promotes Open Source software. "What the Minister has said is simply not consistent with European policy," he told ElectricNews.Net.

Furthermore, Open Ireland, in an open letter to Minister Hanafin, said that the idea that Open Source software forces users to switch to a "different flavour" from time to time is untrue. "With closed, proprietary software you are GUARANTEED to be forced to change to new platforms -- at the total discretion of the software vendor," the group said in the letter.

[...]

Typedef

Originally posted by albertw

With a solution from M$, IBM, Sun etc. your contract will have support, a guarntee that if something goes wrong it will be back up in 3 hours, and it will have a total price tag. The governemnt lawyers and IT folks can also stipulate the upgrade requirements. Several large OS companies still support some old OS's for customers in this position.

What are you talking about?

I worked for a company that provided DB/Ui tools to a bank.

One day SQLServer crapped out and the Bank (backupless) was looking a loosing an entire day's data.

The entire business operation ground to a halt for most of the business day, until a 200 dollar support call to Microsoft, where the Microsoft rep just happened to know, how to fix a fairly obscure bug, with the system.

Point being, this 'magic' support, which is frequently touted by Propiatery exponents, is just, exactly that, best left to fairy tales and child's stories, with the rest of the tales of 'magic', since it doesn't bear out in the real world.

You'd be better off with a competent System Administrator, using an Open system, where 'every' aspect of the system and every bug, in the system is subject to peer review and wide discussion over the internet, since whatever the breakage, it still falls to the Sys Admin to fix it, since Microsoft certainly didn't onsite this *bank*.

Had the bug been well doucmented al-la Open Source bugs, the fix, which works around a flaw in the logic of the DB design, would be easy to fix, without paying mad amounts of money to a propiatery system for support and upgrades, for damned bugs 'included' in the product they sold you to begin with. That's no sort of rationale to run a product maintenance system off of, and people who sign up to that sort of 'racking' ... 'deserve' to be squeezed for their hard earned.

In any case, how does the support you can 'buy' from third party vendors for Open Source solutions, fall short of that which you 'buy' from Closed source vendors?

At least in the Open Source case you don't get tied irredemably into a 'single' vendor, a-la Microsoft.

Lemming

I have noticed a few people in here mention the support option given by closed source vendors. You are not buying the support that you think you are.

If you (corporate or resident - it doesn't matter) have a problem, they'll talk you through the manual - perhaps even send someone out to take a look - or else tell you to re-install everything. If there is a flault, they will simply tell you that they have passed it on to their developers and that a patch *might* be available in 6/12/18 months.

Hardly satisfactory is it? You are buying the illusion, nothing more.

matthiku

I have to support Lemming's conclusion. I myself work in the support department of a closed source software vendor. Our customers are among the big Insurance companies and Banks in Europe.

If a "new" bug is discoverd in the software, all they get is a promise that it (hopefully) will be fixed in the next release. Only if there is a big deal or revenue with the customer at stake, the development will put in ressources to "patch" this single problem for them.

Other customers, no matter how much they paid for their support contract, will not get "their" bug fixed but have to wait for the next release. And this is common practice in the industrie.

oscarBravo

Another angle on the above points: I spent most of my past life in the IT business working on AS/400 (now iSeries) systems. A common practice on that type of platform is that the customer gets the source code to mission-critical systems (example: J D Edwards). It's not Open Source, but it shares one advantage with it: a competent programmer on-site can fix most bugs that arise.

We also fed bugfixes back to JDE. I don't remember getting any thanks for it...

Having "grown up" in that environment, with no real PC exposure for the first couple of years (and I'm talking about when 80286-based IBM ATs were the Big Thing) I remember being quite surprised at the idea of buying software and not getting the source code.

Capt'n Midnight

Remember Embrace and Extend is microsoft speak for taking an open standard and tweaking it so the microsoft version is slightly different - close enough to allow developers to use it - different enough to lock out competition. They have lost court cases over this in the past - and in others there have been major flaws in their impleminatation of Validated RFC's (not all RFC's are implementated).
eg:
Java, Word save as HTML options , IE vs. Netscape web sites (yeah netscape have to take some stick on some of their HTML work too) , PPTP

"how many microsoft programmers does it take to change a light bulb ?
none - they just redefine darkness as a new industry standard"

Open Standards are good - this I would define as well documented information on the standard. Nothing with Undocumentated API's is open standard. NTFS is still very much a closed standard. reverse engineering something like word document format to allow it to be opened in 602 suite or openoffice or ami pro means people can standardise on the format - but it's still NOT open standard. If there is a royalty to pay for the use of the standard guess what it ain't (M$ want to charge about 2c per USB/Flash device formatted with FAT - and then there is all the fuss over the remaining two years of the JPG compression algorithm)

Political ? how about eVoting - the minister saying the system would last for 20 years - fairly sure the access 97 source code will leak by then.. ( Access 97 ? - what about the 2029 two digit date problem ..)

b3t4

Originally posted by nadir
as for the government, why dont they make their own body to manage the computer requirements of the country, sureley its an important enough thing.

I've often wondered why they haven't done this.

A.

Jorinn

Um, the costings they did to establiash that they shouldn't go the open source route would fall under the Freedom of information act, now wouldn't it?

So it could be established how they made the decision.

Jorinn

Also maryt.hanafin@taoiseach.gov.ie

cheeky girl, hiding with the t apparently.

Typedef

I've already sent through an email asking for exactly that.

I'll post it back when I get some meaningful data back from the Ministerial department.