Dear Obama: Please consider open-source a waste of your time
Ruby on Rails will not save the planet
Last week, several big names in open source tossed a letter at American President Barack Obama, urging him to mandate that no government IT purchase be made without someone scrutinizing the software license. "Dear President Obama," it read, "please consider open source."
The letter contained all the classic elements of an open source group hug: freedom, interoperability, community, and transparency. This letter was signed by higher-ups at companies we know and love, like Red Hat, Novell, Unisys, and a handful of other smaller players who want to suckle from the teat of a federal contract.
"Congratulations on your historic and unprecedented presidential victory. We, the authors, are proud to live and work in the nation that elected you and hope your presidency will be as successful as your campaign," the letter begins. Off to a great start: an absolution of white guilt. Now the foot is wedged in the door.
"We believe in the critical role of open-source software to create the applications and infrastructure necessary to support electronic medical records and other government-funded technology projects."
Ah, yes, open source electronic medical records - a panacea for the health care industry. Vendors have been pushing this one for years, with little success, as they don't understand that the inefficiencies in health care keep a lot of people in work. Really. Ask any technical college about a career in "medical billing." The letter was signed by the CEO of Medsphere, a company that provides services around open source medical software, but I'm sure they just brought him in as a domain expert. Right. Because if the idea was really that good, it would thrive without a federal mandate. Plus, it's way easier to legislate your way to success than it is to market your product.
"Open-source software has already resulted in dramatic cost reductions in many technology areas, including: infrastructure, thanks to...products like Linux, Apache, Tomcat, and others; application development, thanks to tools like Eclipse, Ruby on Rails, [and] subversion; communication and collaboration, thanks to open-source applications such as OpenOffice and WordPress."
Alright, name dropping. Now we're cookin' with Crisco. The software is free, so it dramatically reduces cost - that is, until you need to call in a consultant like RedHat to come set the thing up and make it inter-operate with your existing systems. Just so you don't forget the name, RedHat has signed the letter. Now, any industry looking to do business with the government will tout the benefits of its methodology, but only the nerds will write to the president to tell him how awesome Ruby on Rails is. I'd rather my president be concerned with, I don't know, the decline in gross domestic product, rather than whether some app server in the Department of Energy runs Tomcat or WebSphere.
"One example of [open source in a vertical market] is TriSano from Collaborative Software Initiative, an open source, citizen-focused surveillance and outbreak management system for infectious disease, environmental hazards, and bioterrorism attacks."
You hear that? Open source even stops terrorists. In America, you're eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist, but we don't have any open source software to mitigate that threat. Sounds to me like these fellows from Collaborative Software Initiative, whose names are signed John Hancock-style at the top of the list, went after the wrong market.
It used to be that you make a sale by pitching your product to a decision maker. In a failing economy, however, the best way to sell software we can come up with is a letter to Santa. Sign of a bunch of amateurs or sign of the times?
Next page: Reasonable but useless
When quality does matter...
"Quality code isn't enough of an incentive." hahaha tell that to the DoD and crew of the USS Yorktown, remember...
Seems to me when quality of the code matters certain departments of the government actually make the right decisions...
Unfortunately there is the real issue of moving over to opensource when you are firmly entrenched in a Windows culture. I work in support for desktops and servers for many thousands of NHS workers, and I can honestly say than you could probably tell them that you're going to upgrade them to the next version of windows, and install linux instead. They wouldn't know any different with KDE on. Seriously, most desktop users really don't care. There is a lot of truth though about the customized applications for windows desktop and server that would make any kind of migration a nightmare.
It could be done and would take a government mandate to force the issue. It would be a painful transition to OSS but I firmly believe it would be a better move than sticking with Microsoft in the long run. However, I've yet to see any realistic migration plan from an OSS community that would allow a large organization or company to migrate to OSS and it not cost an arm and a leg in support in the short term. Short term pain, long term gain. This isn't the mentality of world culture anymore. If it was then we wouldn't be facing the credit crunch. Something has to change and government policy is a good place to start.
"Mine's the one with the ROI calculator in the pocket."
In the time you (probably) spent typing up and proofreading your missive, I could have (probably) converted a member of your family to a personalized subset of Slackware.
You can babble on and on about how the installed base is too massive to shift, but some of us are quietly going about the job of helping folks understand the reality of FOSS, and installing FOSS systems in places where it makes sense.
NOTHING is too important to be left in the backwaters of history. Not even Microsoft. And not even Linux or BSD, for that matter.
But by its very nature, FOSS will be here for the foreseeable future. Get used to the idea, learn what it means, or be left behind.