Should the government use FOSS to save money?

shadowninty

While the amounts may be small, at least €5 million a year could be saved on licensing from Microsoft. In the context of every tiny bit of expenditure being looked at, this seems like a good idea to me.

Johnboy1951

They would get a heck of a lot more if they taxed the MS profits going through this country.

I think they should change to OSS to ensure there are no proprietary formats used anywhere .... even if it cost a little more ....

Donny5

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

They would get a heck of a lot more if they taxed the MS profits going through this country.

That's a stupid argument. If they upped the corporate tax rate, Microsoft and every other multi would just **** off.

Johnboy1951

Donny5 wrote: »

That's a stupid argument. If they upped the corporate tax rate, Microsoft and every other multi would just **** off.

It was not an argument, it was a statement.

Neither did I specify corporate tax .... in fact I more had in mind the huge amounts of money funnelled through Ireland by MS and others, under our extremely generous patent & licence income tax rates.

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/US_Multinationals_Overseas_Profits_Ireland_s_paten_3995.shtml

Irish tax exemption on patent income, has promoted the parking of US multinational company overseas profits in Ireland

matrim

The problem is that it's not just licenses that you have to look at. There's also support contracts and cost of hiring support staff and re-training existing staff to use the new OS and software and probably "guaranteed" upgrade paths and certification

Also what would you suggest they replace them with? What options are there that will allow email, active directory (LDAP), Single sign on, phone and applicaton support etc that are guaranteed to interop and will have a large candidate base for support contracts?

I'm not saying there aren't good options out there but it's more than just saying replace windows with ubuntu (or whatever) there are so many layers of application and backend things to consider that you probably wouldn't be talking about seeing any money saving for years.

I remember something recently that the German government which has swapped to Linux for a few years was switching back to windows, but unfortunately can't remember the exact details of why the switched back

Johnboy1951

matrim wrote: »

The problem is that it's not just licenses that you have to look at. There's also support contracts and cost of hiring support staff and re-training existing staff to use the new OS and software and probably "guaranteed" upgrade paths and certification

Also what would you suggest they replace them with? What options are there that will allow email, active directory (LDAP), Single sign on, phone and applicaton support etc that are guaranteed to interop and will have a large candidate base for support contracts?

I'm not saying there aren't good options out there but it's more than just saying replace windows with ubuntu (or whatever) there are so many layers of application and backend things to consider that you probably wouldn't be talking about seeing any money saving for years.

I remember something recently that the German government which has swapped to Linux for a few years was switching back to windows, but unfortunately can't remember the exact details of why the switched back

Re the German thing ..... it was IIRC, one particular department (and maybe one particular area, not sure) ... there was a change of management who made that decision despite all commissioned reports advising otherwise. Make what you will of that

The question did not refer to Linux, but to FOSS ..... so for instance using OpenOffice or LibreOffice or such would not require a change of OS. There are many such examples.

There's also support contracts and cost of hiring support staff and re-training existing staff to use the new OS and software and probably "guaranteed" upgrade paths and certification

The implication in this is that those costs do not exist presently ..... because they do exist, I do not see the point of mentioning them.

The use of OSS software guarantees interoperability due to its openness.
It is the proprietary software that keeps things locked and prevents others from communicating on a level playing field.
Hence we have the EC trying to legislate out this 'lock down' on interoperability ... and of course it is the proprietary software vendors who object. Big surprise!

regards

Donny5

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

It was not an argument, it was a statement.

It's an incorrect statement. Just as our low tax rates are an incentive to do business here, higher rates would have the opposite effect, and investments would be lost.

Kinetic^

To add to the additional costs already mentioned, could you imagine how the unions would react having their members using alternative software or operating systems.....

Jagle

Kinetic^ wrote: »

To add to the additional costs already mentioned, could you imagine how the unions would react having their members using alternative software or operating systems.....

Same with the social welfare, we have state of the art systems not being used because staff want more money to use the new stuff, id tell em its your job do it or go. such BS in the public sector

Capt'n Midnight

the main benefit in suggesting FOSS is to get a discount from M$ & co.

the resistance from the staff would be the main problem

CptSternn

Jagle wrote: »

Same with the social welfare, we have state of the art systems not being used because staff want more money to use the new stuff, id tell em its your job do it or go. such BS in the public sector

Having worked in a few different positions in various contracts at a few different state agencies I can tell you from first hand your statement is farcical.

Social Welfare are actually using cutting edge systems. I know, I installed many of them. There has never been any issues with pay or unions involving new tech.

The same goes for many other agencies. Right now the government is upgrading lots of their old tech with brand new systems. Microsoft stuff works right out of the box, and is compatible with other Microsoft stuff. FOSS can't do half the stuff that businesses need much less what the government needs these days.

I can tell you that for a fact as well, because before any of the upgrades that were performed outside 3rd parties all placed bids with detailed reports and presentations that outlined costs and abilities. Microsoft prevailed every time.

Say you do go with open source. You then have to hire people to operate and monitor the systems. The issue then is staffing. Finding people who are qualified in a cadre of open source apps is damn hard and usually more expensive than hiring a Microsoft certified person who has a broad knowledge of many apps.

Then you have the issue of abilities. Open source can't hold a candle to Microsoft when it comes to incorporating mobile phones, remote access, and many other things in many other areas. Tracking, monitoring, and reporting on all systems in a simple an easy fashion is another area open source is still lacking. I'm not saying you can't cobble together a solution from various open source packages to do some of this stuff, it's just it will be lots of work, and only a handful of people would be able to understand what is going on. God forbid they get hit by a bus or quit. You can't just go out and find one person with knowledge of all those various open source packages and hire another one, whereas you can with Microsoft products.

If you do go down that path, end up in that situation, and are lucky enough to find an open source guru who is able to come in and look at a patchwork of open source products and sort it all out, you still are left with three issues - first the cost of this individual, the time frame it will take them to learn everything, and again the problem of what happens if this person gets hit by a bus.

Support though has always been the deciding factor in most cases. Here is an issue I have encountered a few times that you can beat when it comes to Microsoft -

A mission critical server has an issue and goes down. This server going down costs the business tens of thousands AN HOUR. Local staff can't fix it, so we bring in the next level of support, Microsoft. Thanks to the SLA with Microsoft, they will fix the issue within a couple of hours, or figure out a work around. If they don't, they will reimburse the company for all lost profit. You don't get that with any open source. If you are using open source software you are not paying for there is no chain of command you can call upon if a problem escalates beyond your own capabilities or resources.

Businesses and government agencies need security, I'm not talking about IT security, but security to know that if something goes wrong there is someone who will cover their financial losses. The bottom line on this is why open source will always lose out to Microsoft every single time.

Ask any IT manager about this and they will tell you the same thing. The two questions that make Microsoft the only solution - Who do you call when your staff can't fix the issue? Who will cover the losses?

shadowninty

First thing - most servers do not run on MS server software, with good reasons
Secondly, you realise there are companies behind many FOSS who have paid support packages?
Thirdly, Of course MS stuff is compatible with other MS stuff - but f all else.

Johnboy1951

If you are using open source software you are not paying for there is no chain of command you can call upon if a problem escalates beyond your own capabilities or resources.

That is nonsense.
Sign a support contract with one of the many such companies who provide the service ...... just as you have to with MS.

I will admit though, that MS has much more experience is solving problems than those who support OSS .... out of necessity

azzeretti

While the amounts may be small, at least €5 million a year could be saved on licensing from Microsoft. In the context of every tiny bit of expenditure being looked at, this seems like a good idea to me.

Its already well under way. We've been into them a few times for seminars etc explaining what is needed.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/strategy/item/20408-local-government-considers

azzeretti

CptSternn wrote: »

Open source can't hold a candle to Microsoft when it comes to incorporating mobile phones, remote access, and many other things in many other areas.

This is just being silly, I think.

A mission critical server has an issue and goes down. This server going down costs the business tens of thousands AN HOUR. Local staff can't fix it, so we bring in the next level of support, Microsoft. Thanks to the SLA with Microsoft, they will fix the issue within a couple of hours, or figure out a work around. If they don't, they will reimburse the company for all lost profit. You don't get that with any open source.

Firstly: mission critical server costing business tens of thousands an hour with no redundancy? - You get what you deserve.
Secondly: There are plenty of open source solution providers that will offer SLAs on their products. Just cause it's open source doesn't mean there is not an available commercial support option.

Businesses and government agencies need security, I'm not talking about IT security, but security to know that if something goes wrong there is someone who will cover their financial losses. The bottom line on this is why open source will always lose out to Microsoft every single time.

Ask any IT manager about this and they will tell you the same thing. The two questions that make Microsoft the only solution - Who do you call when your staff can't fix the issue? Who will cover the losses?

I have been working very closing with Government agencies and local authorities for the last 10 years and there has been an unbeliveable swing towards open source in the last 2 years. Especially since the whole Microsoft licensing fiasco with the COCOs. I think things are changing fast.

Johnboy1951

azzeretti wrote: »

Its already well under way. We've been into them a few times for seminars etc explaining what is needed.

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/strategy/item/20408-local-government-considers

Thanks for the link

croo

Sorry CptSternn but this is just total bull****.

The only difference between open source and MS solutions is you are entitled to the code when you buy an open source solution. That's it. There are companies selling support. As for covering losses, have you ever actually read a MS EULA? Because it doesn't sound like it to me!

As for MS's vaunted support - I've only needed to ask their support how to resolve a problem on 2 or 3 occasions and I NEVER got a solution from them. At the time I was working for billion dollar customers of theirs so they had every motivation. Now, that is not much worse than most big software companies with the typical responses being "unable to reproduce" or it'll be "fixed in the next version".

The fact is elements of government are already using open source. Last year I read about a number of county council's that had dropped their MS enterprise licenses. Primarily because the license agreements were so complex they actually had to create new jobs for people just to keep track of them.
They'd trialled some server based open source solutions and nobody even noticed so they planned to extend this success.
And the government's eTenders website recently posted an "advert" (well it wasn't an actual RFT) for providers of open source solutions & support to register and provide details so there is obviously something happening.

You obviously sell MS solutions to government and want to protect your position - and FUD is the MS way... so forgive us if we take what you say with a truck load of salt!

There is nothing MS provides that cannot be found in the open source world - including mobile phone integration ... you might not have heard of android in your cosy MS world!?

When you get to it, in businesses of a certain size I rarely found MS solutions except on the desktop. The giants are run on unix (linux mostly now) & mainframes (more an more running linux too!), oracle & sap.

The desktop becomes more and more irrelevant as web, mobiles & tablets begin to take hold. Soon nobody will care which desktop and then we might get a truly open market place. And when you look at the web and consider that most of it is NOT MS ... well telling people that only MS can handle government solutions is an absolute absurdity. Though it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that that's all the Irish government uses. I mean let's face it they are so on top of their game in every other respect :rolleyes:

Begorrah

There are examples of this being implemented abroad.
http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/03/french-police-saves-millions-of-euros-by-adopting-ubuntu.ars
It would be a more secure solution due to lower risk(if any) of malware etc and more machines could be administered by fewer even if these people are more expensive.

They're are to too many machine running XP in the Civil Service for us to afford upgrading to Windows 7 for the security alone so users are prevented from installing anything they click on.

I'm not saying they're isn't many situations where Windows isn't preferred but I'm sure that are plenty repetitive workflows being preformed out there that don't need all the bells and whistles of a Windows environment.

jimmycrackcorm

I've been working mainly on projects over the last few years based around FOSS and the most significant thing I've learned is that: free, it is not!

E.g. You develop using JBoss but no enterprise customer will accept it without RH paid support. Same for using Red Hat vs Windows 2008 Server. Rhel is invalid unless you pay the annual subscription vs. paying upfront for the MS license.

Capt'n Midnight

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've been working mainly on projects over the last few years based around FOSS and the most significant thing I've learned is that: free, it is not!

E.g. You develop using JBoss but no enterprise customer will accept it without RH paid support. Same for using Red Hat vs Windows 2008 Server. Rhel is invalid unless you pay the annual subscription vs. paying upfront for the MS license.

That's a decision by the customer.

In the microsoft world a package using SQL server as a backend with office used for reports means you have to buy lots of CAL's , office licenses etc. Which adds up very fast. And the temptation is to use windows/office for other things since you've already paid for them. It's the old foot in the door thing. Terminal services reduces some of this, but you still need licenese per client.

Annual subscriptions vary from 10% to 1/3rd. At the latter end there is no point if you aren't planning to upgrade within the next three years.
windows XP is interesting as it's the longest lived microsoft OS, some metrics put it at over 50% of visitors to all sites. It's longevity may have impaced on software assurance, consider how many organisations downgraded vista to xp.

croo

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I've been working mainly on projects over the last few years based around FOSS and the most significant thing I've learned is that: free, it is not!

It's an old argument, but the Free in FOSS refers to Freedom... google "free as in freedom not free as in beer". Or read Richards Stallman's explanation http://oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/

Even so, the Freedom provides for an open market around the tools and software - and open market places tend to deliver better value.

As Capt'n Midnight says, the decision to purchase support is a customer decision. The most important thing FOSS provides is that choice!

croo

croo wrote: »

The only difference between open source and MS solutions is you are entitled to the code when you buy an open source solution.

So what? All that means is that instead of government writing cheques to Microsoft, they'd write cheques to the IT consultancy firms. :rolleyes:

croo

Deleted User wrote: »

So what? All that means is that instead of government writing cheques to Microsoft, they'd write cheques to the IT consultancy firms. :rolleyes:

It has nothing to do with cheques., it has to do with freedom & security. Though you'd expect the cheques to be smaller in an truly open market place.

croo

croo wrote: »

It has nothing to do with cheques., it has to do with freedom & security. Though you'd expect the cheques to be smaller in an truly open market place.

It has nothing to do with cheques, but it has everything to do with the way the public sector does its ICT business.

In my experience, many if not most organisations in the public sector don't have a clue how to properly manage an in-house ICT operation, so effectively development and maintenance of critical systems has been handed over to IT consultancy firms. The skills and competencies needed to understand and maintain the software for these systems reside not in the public sector agencies, but with the contractors.

If the same public sector organisations were to ditch proprietary software in favour of open source, having the code would only mean that they'd need the skills to manage the code. Those skills wouldn't exist in-house (for the most part) and would have to be bought in. Can you guess who'd be doing the selling?

croo

Deleted User wrote: »

It has nothing to do with cheques, but it has everything to do with the way the public sector does its ICT business.

In my experience, many if not most organisations in the public sector don't have a clue how to properly manage an in-house ICT operation, so effectively development and maintenance of critical systems has been handed over to IT consultancy firms. The skills and competencies needed to understand and maintain the software for these systems reside not in the public sector agencies, but with the contractors.

If the same public sector organisations were to ditch proprietary software in favour of open source, having the code would only mean that they'd need the skills to manage the code Now, governments will pay a premium for. Those skills wouldn't exist in-house (for the most part) and would have to be bought in. Can you guess who'd be doing the selling?

Well, I've never worked for a public sector body but I have worked for very big enterprises that match the Irish PS in size. Though I am sure it's still not the completely the same, I think there might be some commonality. In large enterprises I worked in, consultants are hired to shield managers from the consequences of bad management decisions!

After saying that, I believe having the code offers more benefits than you think. If you have the code you are not compelled to develop the skills, in house, to manage the code... but that is an option and you have a choice. But even if you decide to go outside then you have yet more choice and can shop around to get the best price for the services required. Now for this to be most efficient it would be better if the software was developed to and with open standards.

We probably would end up with the same consultancies firms doing the work, that wouldn't surprise me, but there would more options so perhaps the price might be better. I guess it is a little (a lot even) naive of me but I would hope that the more efficient government is the less tax it might need!

croo

croo wrote: »

Well, I've never worked for a public sector body but I have worked for very big enterprises that match the Irish PS in size.

[...]

I guess it is a little (a lot even) naive of me but I would hope that the more efficient government is the less tax it might need!

I haven't worked in ICT in the commercial sector, but I've quite a bit of experience with, for the want of a better term, e-government. What I found was a disconnect between the ability of the IT people and their confidence. Most of them had all the right technical expertise, but it's as if they didn't believe it - or didn't believe that their expertise was quite enough.

Personally, I think that had something to do with the risk-averse mindset of the public sector. I lost count of the number of times I heard people (techies or managers) say that no-one's career ever tanked because they bought the market leader. You probably hear that in the private sector as well, but it almost completely dominates thinking in the public sector.

croo

Deleted User wrote: »

I lost count of the number of times I heard people (techies or managers) say that no-one's career ever tanked because they bought the market leader. You probably hear that in the private sector as well, but it almost completely dominates thinking in the public sector.

Yeah, when IBM ruled the world of PCs, "you'd never lose your job for buying IBM", was a common expression. Then when it was eventually realized that the "clones" were just as good as, if not better, than the IBM PCs but at only a fraction of the price... then people did lose their jobs!

Last year I was at an EI conference and there were some IT guys there from the County Boards making a presentation. The short of it was they'd implemented some services behind the scenes using open source solutions ... nobody noticed so nobody complained. So now they were moving forward, introducing more foss. They also mentioned that they were not renewing the enterprise license with MS. Mostly because managing the CALs was so complex... so complex they'd literally created new jobs just to keep track of what they were and weren't using license wise.

And I missed an eTenders request recently looking for information on local companies offering services around foss solutions. As I said I was too late to register my interest so I don't have any other details, but I guess there is some movement on that front - even if it is slow.

Grudaire

Very interesting topic really - personally I don't see the big deal with switching.

Linux is clearly a massively capable operating system. It may not do everything that Windows does - but then Windows doesn't do everything that linux can either. In fact I would think that Linux is far far more capable when it comes to the needs of the public service. (Safety, Networking, Interoperability, Administration)

Not to trivialise it all, but if Google can run such a successful business on linux, then why can't we run a half arsed government on it as well!?

visual

shadowninty wrote: »

While the amounts may be small, at least €5 million a year could be saved on licensing from Microsoft. In the context of every tiny bit of expenditure being looked at, this seems like a good idea to me.

The Gov should employ qualified IT people and not left overs found wandering around in the corridors....
The amount of money burned up is just unreal... there is so much licensing with software every single server is costing thousands to license and maintain. Then all workstations need MS office the list goes on.

Try applying for anything on-line 90% of the time you having to print it off and post it in...

But you have a good point and it has to start somewhere after all the more money waisted the more we have to forgo services and entitlements while digging deeper into our pocket to keep it afloat