"Proposed Software Monopoly" Press Release
Jeff Kinz
jkinz at kinz.org
Sat Oct 4 21:04:59 EDT 2003
Just as an additional point of information - Microsoft is one of CAGW's
financial sponsor's. Despite that most of CAGW's position do seem truly
intended to protect taxpayers from waste.
However that makes their postion on open source even more problematic.
Because of their other work they actually have some credibility in the
area of protecting taxpayers interests. So in this case, where they are
either incredibly ignorant or deliberately ignoring their charter to favor
one of their sponsors, they will be hurting the Open Source movement.
On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:45:58PM -0400, plussier at mindspring.com wrote:
>
> To whom it may concern,
>
> As a citizen and registered voter in the 37th Middlesex District of
> Massachusetts, I find the Council for Citizens Against Goverment Waste
> press release of 30 September, 2003 (available here:
>
> http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_09302003b )
>
> to be frought with mis-understanding, mis-information, and
> mis-leading intentions. The CAGW has completely mis-represented
> Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's proposal, which actually states:
>
> In technology, we will adopt open standards to make systems more
> interoperable, and open source software, when available, to reduce
> licensing, programming and maintenance costs.
> (http://mass.gov/agency/documents/eoaf/The_Capital_Budget.pdf)
>
> And Eric Kriss, State Secretary of Administration and Finance is
> quoted in a CNET article as re-iterating this stance here:
>
> "The state will also give preference to open-source software,
> although it will continue to purchase proprietary products if
> they are found to be superior technologically or otherwise..."
> (http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html)
>
> In your press release, you claim that Massachusetts CIO Peter
> Quinn states an intention to "move all state and local government
> computers to open-source operating systems." Yet you cite no source
> for this supposed claim, which in fact, is completely wrong. More
> over, a search of the World Wide Web for this supposed quote
> turns only the CAGW Press Release at PR Newswire
> (http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20030930/30sep2003162722.html)
> in which the CAGW is cited for the source of this information. This
> makes it appear as the CAGW is really putting words in the mouths of
> politicians to further it's own agenda!
>
> According CNET (http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html) , the
> policy "will give preference to open-source software and products that
> adhere to open standards" to ensure that, as Eric Kriss is quoted as
> saying, "what we build is interoperable and interchangeable, so that
> different applications can use the same data, so we won't have to be
> constantly reinventing and rethinking basic functionality."
>
> CAGW President Tom Schatz is also quoted as saying, "People mistakenly
> refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and
> distributed." I fail to understand why exactly people are mistaken in
> referring to Linux as 'free' in this way, when it is so clearly stated
> in the license under which Linux is distributed, the GNU General
> Public License, that:
>
> - ...the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your
> freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software
> is free for all its users.
>
> - When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
>
> - Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
> have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
> this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
> if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
> in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
>
> I fail to understand how Mr. Schatz could make a claim that these
> people are mistaken in this belief, when in fact, this belief is one
> hundred percent accurate?
>
> Mr. Schatz continues on to claim that, "Yet while the software itself
> is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very
> expensive". Yet there are no references to studies, statistics, or
> even anecdotes provided to back up this claim. As an IT professional
> for more than 10 years, I'm quite curious to know Mr. Schatz's
> qualifications to make such claims. Especially considering that
> during my carreer I have saved many companies many thousands if not
> millions of dollars by using Free and Open Source Software. This
> savings was not experienced solely in the lack of up-front financial
> investment in the software, though that obviously contributed.
> Rather, the cost savings were experienced in the lack of annual
> licensing costs, lack of annual support contracts, and lack of
> continually forced and unnecessary software upgrades.
>
> Mr. Schatz does however, make two claims I completely agree with:
>
> - the best policy on the use of software is to place all products
> on equal footing.
> - It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs
> at the least cost.
>
> And in fact, I believe that the Massachusetts policy does exactly
> this. First, they insist that any software purchase requires
> the software comply to open standards and that the data can be
> easily accessed by means other than through the software which
> created the data. Second, it finally puts Free and Open Software
> on equal footing with commercial and proprietary software vendors.
> Prior to this policy, only software sold by state approved vendors
> could be considered for purchase. This effectively eliminated Free
> and Open Source Software from official use within state and local
> government. This policy puts all software on equal footing by
> mandating quality as the primary factor in purchase decisions. If
> commercial and proprietary software vendors can not compete based on
> the quality of their software, I do not want that software used in my
> government, nor do I want my tax dollars spent to procure it.
>
> Mr. Schatz continues on with statements such as, "Maintenance,
> training and support are far more expensive with open source than
> proprietary software." Yet again, fails to provide any data points to
> back up this position. And again, I cite my decade of experience
> proving exactly the opposite.
>
> Mr. Schatz also claims that, "Massachusetts is proving itself the most
> technologically inept state in the nation." Which I find quite
> amazing and ludicrous, considering that Massachusetts is home to many
> of the people, companies, and educational institutions which helped
> create, and continue to further the underlying technologies of what we
> now know as the Internet. Is Mr. Schatz aware that all of these
> technologies are also Free and Open Source Software, and that without
> Free and Open Source software, the Internet and everything we have
> come to enjoy about it would not exist in the way we know and
> appreciate it today?
>
> If Mr. Schatz and the CAGW are truly looking out for Fraud, Waste,
> and Abuse of tax payer monies, they would be heralding this policy of
> enlightenment, and praising Governor Romney for such an insightful
> policy. And if Mr. Schatz and the CAGW really felt that the use of
> Free and Open Source Software was more costly to the tax payer for
> all the reasons cited in the mis-leading press release, then the
> CAGW's own web site would not be running Free and Open Source
> Software such as:
>
> - FreeBSD
> - Apache/1.3.12 (Unix)
> - mod_ssl/2.6.5
> - OpenSSL/0.9.6e
> - ApacheJServ/1.1.2
> - mod_fastcgi/2.2.10
>
> And, CAGW would not have moved to all this Free and Open Source
> Software from the combination of IRIX, PapidSite, and FrontPage which
> was used prior to 19 April 2002 when CAGW moved their hosting
> services from Verio to Convio ( all this data freely available at
> http://www.netcraft.com).
>
> In short, I find the press release, Mr. Schatz, and the CAGW at best,
> completely ignorant and mis-informed about technology in general, and
> Free and Open Software in specific. At worst, I find them to be
> hypocritical, disingenuous, deceitful, and exemplary of the exact
> type of politicians they would have me believe they are attempting to
> protect me from.
>
> Finally, in closing, I would like some explanation as to why the CAGW
> is against a policy which:
>
> - saves tax payer money immediately by using higher quality software
> at a lower cost
> - saves tax payer money over the long term by requiring standards-compliant,
> interoperable data formats which prevent costly data migrations
> in the future as applications and systems change.
> - provide an avenue to purchase commercial software when there is
> no other alternative, or it's superiority is obvious
> - keeps state and local tax payer dollars local by allowing
> state and local governments to hire local Open Source experts
> for support rather than send this money out of state to commercial
> software companies
>
> The Governor, his team, the House, and Senate, all have my complete
> support for this policy, and I await some explanation from Mr.
> Schatz and the CAGW as to why it is acting and speaking in ways
> completely hypocritical to it's agenda of trying to save tax payer
> monies.
>
> Thank you.
> Sincerely,
> --
> Paul Lussier
> Principal Systems and Network Engineer
>
> Co-Chairman, Greater New Hampshire Linux User's Group (GNHLUG)
> http://www.gnhlug.org
> Events: http://www.gnhlug.org/lug_cal/month.php
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnhlug-discuss mailing list
> gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
> http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
>
--
Jeff Kinz, Open-PC, Emergent Research, Hudson, MA. jkinz at kinz.org
copyright 2003. Use is restricted. Any use is an
acceptance of the offer at http://www.kinz.org/policy.html.
Don't forget to change your password often.
More information about the gnhlug-discuss
mailing list