"In February 2003, the program 'Open Source and Open Source Software for the Dutch government' started, funded by the Dutch government. One of the main tasks was to make the government independent from single software suppliers, among which are Microsoft and SAP. After three years, the effort starts bearing fruit. Ten big municipalities - together 2.7 million inhabitants and including Amsterdam and The Hague - signed a manifest. I'll try to explain what's in the manifest, what that might mean for the future, and for the monopoly of Microsoft in the Dutch government."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-13
IMHO this is the correct approach for governments to take; they shouldn't arbitrarily mandate OSS over proprietary solutions, decisions like that should be made based on objective criteria such as requirements, TCO and value.
But mandating open standards is important and governments can play a vital role in influencing the adoption of such standards. It should be done intelligently, it should be done with consideration, and it should only be done after careful study, but it should be done. It's simply irresponsible for governments to allow themselves to become dependent upon single source suppliers or vendors, particularly when alternatives exist.
I've got no issues with proprietary software per se, but I'd much prefer to see software vendors have to compete on value and service (whether against OSS or other proprietary products), rather than coasting on lock-in. Enforced adoption of open standards can be an equalizer here, without unfairly punishing proprietary vendors. I believe that is the way that customers are best served. Even Microsoft can be an innovative company when they are forced to compete, it's just been a very long time since they've had to in the application space.
Member since:2006-06-24
Member since:2006-12-16
I'm sorry but I have to totally disagree with this comment. I do have issues with proprietary software, a great deal of issues in fact. Proprietary software is not open, and it is certainly not accountable to the public. It does not serve the public's best interest by any means. Period.
As to the current software situation in Holland, it appears that it's business as usual. If Microsoft (and other proprietary software vendors) can't win at the local level, they'll simply bribe officials at the federal level to get their own way. That is not what I consider a fair and equitable approach to things.
I'm a firm believer that governments should mandate the usage of both open source software, and open standards in order to best serve the public.
Dave
RE[2]: Open Standards vs Open Source
Member since:2005-07-06
I'm a FOSS user and supporter, but I don't like the idea of government(s) mandating use of specific kind of software: mandating non-proprietary formats, like ODF, and publishing a good set of guidelines is the best way IMHO. F.i., the guidelines should suggest to look in the FOSS world first, and to make sure to share modified/new software within the p.a., so to avoid reinventing the wheel; but if no open source exists to solve a specific problem, or the one existing is not up to par, proprietary software should be bought as an intermediate measure.
rehdon
Member since:2005-07-03
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-02-28
Member since:2006-09-22
Does it count as irony that what Microsoft view as their crown jewel, format lock in, is slowly becoming their downfall ?
Ironic? Yes, indeed. Downfall? Not so sure. Yes, Open Document Format is getting more and more attention from the governments and companies, but the only thing MS has to do is to offer compatibility with those formats and the problem is gone. Of course, this will bring the obvious question "If OO.org can also read an write ODF... why should I buy MS Office?" but that, IMHO, doen't count as "downfall".
Again, IMHO, Microsoft's products and MS itself have way more features to sell than just a file format.
Is MS up to the challenge when pushed to fight on open lands? Time will tell.
Member since:2005-11-11
//Is MS up to the challenge when pushed to fight on open lands? Time will tell.//
If the history of Microsoft tells us anything about them, it tells us that Microsoft have persistently refused to "fight on open lands" in the past, and done everything underhanded they possibly could to eliminate the competition in order to avoid the fight in the first place.
It would seem that the probable answer is that Microsoft is totally incapable of winning a true and open contest.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-12-29
Member since:2005-07-13
It would seem that the probable answer is that Microsoft is totally incapable of winning a true and open contest.
I would disagree with that, Microsoft can be very innovative when they need to be. They have the money, resources and some of the best talent on the planet working for them.
MS Office was once the underdog when it came out, it struggled with having to manage proprietary formats from Lotus and WordPerfect. The initial acceptance for Office came from the fact that it provided an integrated office suite of "good enough" products and was one of the first to actually leverage Windows as a framework and not just a GUI. WordPerfect and Lotus owned the office software market, but they were asleep at the switch and when the industry was signalling change, they were complacent and relied on a lock-in strategy. For years, Office had to carry compatibility modes for WordPerfect and 123, AFAIK they may even still be there.
Microsoft is most vulnerable in the embrace and extend cycles of their EEE strategy. Those are the points where they're still competing against alternative products.
It's game over when they hit the extinguish phase though, because that's when lock-in takes hold, Microsoft slashes R&D and turns on the cruise control, and we ultimately get shafted.
Enforcing open standards can at least help throw MS Office back to embrace and extend, and maybe the innovative alternatives will stand a fighting chance.
Member since:2005-07-10
Member since:
2005-07-06
The article explains the municipalities' four excellent reasons to go the way they did:
1. Supplier independence
2. Interoperability
3. Transparency and verifiability and
4. Digital durability
If the open source movement can start explaining things this way, and explaining how many closed source companies (not all) will not guarantee these results, and in some cases work actively against them, they can help themselves a lot.
Member since:2006-09-15
This hits the nail on the head and shows where campaigning for OSS should be focused.
Highlight the positives of utilising open standards and software instead of trying to sledgehammer the negatives of proprietary systems. Goes a long way to promoting alternatives in a good light which is more akin to using a carrot instead of a stick in one's approach.
Member since:2006-09-27
"If the open source movement can start explaining things this way, and explaining how many closed source companies (not all) will not guarantee these results, and in some cases work actively against them, they can help themselves a lot."
I would add that reason #3 (transparency and verifiability) is essentially incompatible with closed-source software. By definition, backdoors and similar niceties are always possible if the source is unavailable.
Member since:
2006-10-10
Member since:2006-08-09
That's pretty interesting considering SAP is a German product. I would figure there to be some camaraderie amongst the Euro nations.
The Netherlands even ordered the Joint Strike Fighter, so you might want to adjust your ideas on how Europe works. And Bill Gates visited the prime minister's office (the latter must have been as proud as when he visited Washington DC to meet George W.). It is reported they talked about (ready for impact?) innovation.
Member since:2006-10-10
Well, that's great. Not sure why I was modded down and you were modded up since neither of us said anything of any real consequence.
I have no opinion on whether nations adopting Linux, or disowning Windows (or any other program) is a good or bad thing. Actually, I really don't think it makes a lick of difference, to tell you the truth. It's PR fodder for the winner of the contract. MS could probably care less that the government of Luxembourg dumps them for Unix, for example. They've already given the EU the big middle finger in their anti-trust court battles. With the amount of yearly profit they're taking in, they should just get on TV, or in front of the UN, and tell the entire EU to "suck it loud".
Until the US's FTC, or whatever governing body, puts MS on trial for monopolistic behavior, then I'll believe change is in the air. Until then, it really matters not what the EU thinks, or does.
Member since:
2006-12-19
Member since:2005-07-03
Member since:2006-10-10
I just thought they'd be more inclined to use a solution from one of the Netherlands neighbors before sending cash to the Great Yankee Satan over here. If it's simply to find a decent OSS ERP solution, more power to them. Let us know if they find one.
If that's not the case, we'll gladly take their money. Just keep providing us with a safe haven for legal pot and prostitution.
Member since:
2005-12-31
Member since:
2006-06-19
Member since:
2005-07-23
Having read the LXer piece I can't help but think that the dutch government has a bunch of stallman-lites at the helm.
In other words, they're making their choice based on something other than the merits of technicality and what's the best tool for the job.
Granted, that open source, the source being open and available is a benefit in it's own right, that's wholly different than choosing photoshop over Gimp because of superior plugins, a better/more streamlined interface, and whatever other benefits that photoshop may bring. That goes for office applications, OS's, and everything else.
It seems to me that the Dutch are doing this not because they are making the choice to buy the best tool for the job, but rather that they're doing this to spite microsoft. I can say that by the fact that nowhere in the piece is the word 'security' mentioned.(though granted this isn't the actual manifesto') That's one of the biggies for switching away from windows, on a technical/merits level.
Now, for the record, I do on some level agree with their position. Microsoft clearly has too much power. But the government has a job to do in serving it's people and if it's choosing inferior tools for the job(which let's be honest, as much as I love my OSS software, I'm a full time linux user, alot of this software has alot of holes, sometimes gaping holes in the feature list category) then it's not doing a service, rather it's doing a dis-service to the people. Besides..... while it may be to our benefit to limit microsoft's power, the last place we want power concentrated is in the government.
Getting the people's work work done as fast as possible with the best tools available is *much* more important than spiting microsoft. And software compatibility should be very low on the totem pole when you compare to all the other thing that people need done on a regular basis, if compatibility can even be listed as "the people's work" without forcing one to laugh.
We as linux users keep gaining ground/marketshare. We don't need government's help on this. And with how stallman goes around espousing his views, I can't help but wonder if the dutch government is infusing religion into it's practices. The religion of stallman to me is like any other religion.
It doesn't belong in government. It's one thing to have references and take a few key things into account. It's another thing to choose sides.
Edited 2006-12-29 12:43
Member since:2005-07-22
Member since:2005-07-18
It seems to me that the Dutch are doing this not because they are making the choice to buy the best tool for the job, but rather that they're doing this to spite microsoft.
The reasons they stated are a lot more plausible than the reason you suggest.
Microsoft clearly has too much power. But the government has a job to do in serving it's people and if it's choosing inferior tools for the job...
The government's decision seems remarkably unpolitical by comparison to what all governments typically do. Yet you are approaching it as if it were nothing but politics and religion. I think you should step back a few paces and reassess.
We as linux users keep gaining ground/marketshare. We don't need government's help on this.
True. Irrelevant.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-09-24
