Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

jamesmcm.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#21

Post by salimancer »

MattGaiser wrote: post #19

I work for a government software development team (At least for the next week). I have other friends in other governments on other teams. I can’t see a government being able to build generalized software or contribute effectively to it. Governments don’t tend to have people who say no to feature requests. The end result is not a generalized good solution, but extremely specific solutions built on a generalized platfo…

100% agree.

I do R&D in the defense industry and scope creep is an absolute nightmare. The only times I get to say no are when the laws of physics dictate so.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#22

Post by specialist »

"Citizen owned software."

Phrasing I used on the stump, both campaigning and as an activist.

Overwhelming support. One of those 90/10 issues.

People just get it. Resolutions, petitions, platforms practically write themselves.

Forewarning for any future advocates: Appeal directly to the rank & file, Jane Public, editorial boards. Organize bottom up. I can't recall any elected or appointed person supporting (publicly).

Free advice (and twice as valuable): You must have solutions. Real code. My topic was election admin. I couldn't resolve the chicken & egg problem. Any green field efforts would need $10m just to wage the legal battles (certifications, in every jurisdiction). So figure out a way to get existing code into the light.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#23

Post by xapata »

deelowe wrote: post #20
majkinetor wrote: post #11

Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever - citizens payed for it, gov employees were working with implementation team on shaping it, so it belongs to them. This doesn't have to be so for supportive domains such as databases but I would personally prefer that also (i.e. Postgresql instead Oracle db). There are many more reasons for this the…

I gave up thinking the government believes they work for the citizenship about a decade ago.

The government isn't a monolith. It's people, each with different incentives and values.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#24

Post by vharuck »

majkinetor wrote: post #11

Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever - citizens payed for it, gov employees were working with implementation team on shaping it, so it belongs to them. This doesn't have to be so for supportive domains such as databases but I would personally prefer that also (i.e. Postgresql instead Oracle db). There are many more reasons for this the…

We're working with Microsoft on a new data warehouse for analysts, and I'd say the biggest drawback is how everything's a committee decision.

We also have a data warehouse for our online public query system, but it's run in house. It's so easy to modify it or propose additions; I just email the guy in charge, CC his boss, and those two will decide if it's worth the time within a day.

The Microsoft warehouse? We still don't have it after a few years. Everything runs through multiple committees from multiple teams on our end before it's even brought up with the Microsoft rep. It's a terrible game of "whisper down the line," and too few players understand enough of the whole system. I don't know what's practical for the stack, Microsoft doesn't know what's practical for analysis, and the middlemen don't know how to prioritize anything. The public servants with access to all the info don't have time to coordinate this; that's why we contracted it out.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#25

Post by xapata »

fallat wrote: post #8

So the reasons are: cost, contributions, and audits. I'm playing devil's advocate here and think this could be an interesting thought exercise. There is no evidence or proof any of the above are advantageous to governments. 1. Cost - Does it cost more for an existing solution, that maybe other governments and companies have paid toward, than adding features to a solution without all the bells and whistles? 2. Do you…

Open source software is a public good. The government is responsible for creating and maintaining public goods. Where's the dissonance?

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#26

Post by xapata »

an_opabinia wrote: post #13
GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #5

Unfortunately, that isn't how government works. Whether it's F35's or Microsoft Office, putting money into the pockets of political cronies is what drives the purchase. FOSS doesn't benefit anyone with power, so it's useless to the government.

I’ve got news for you dude, cronyism is a lot worse when selling to corporations.

When people complain about government inefficiency I always wonder if they've ever worked at a large company.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#27

Post by afarrell »

I think one easy mistake to make is thinking about this as an investment in software as a technical artefact. Which is more valuable for deterring war:

A. An $80 million fighter jet with dysfunctional communication among its maintenance, logistics, and air combat teams.

B. An organisation which can resiliently perform effective aerial interdiction and communicate the resulting intelligence clearly and swiftly.

B, right? So too with peaceful investments.

Governments should invest in teams with the capability to:

1. Understand the needs of the public, prioritised through some healthy democratic-representative process.

2. Write and refactor high-quality software as that nourishes the public good.

3. Empower members of the public to educate themselves on how to contribute to this public commons.

Open-Source code itself? Eh, writing code is fun. When you take care of the team, the team takes care of the code.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#28

Post by ocdtrekkie »

majkinetor wrote: post #11

Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever - citizens payed for it, gov employees were working with implementation team on shaping it, so it belongs to them. This doesn't have to be so for supportive domains such as databases but I would personally prefer that also (i.e. Postgresql instead Oracle db). There are many more reasons for this the…

> The major reason that proprietary software is so prominent in gov is corruption.

I'd like to see more open source software in government, but the main reason we select proprietary solutions where I work is support. If more open source tools had support staff, maintenance agreements, etc. more government organizations (and businesses) would consider them viable. I may be fairly code-literate IT, but I don't understand a given product as well as the support staff from the company that made it.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#29

Post by afarrell »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #28
majkinetor wrote: post #11

Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever - citizens payed for it, gov employees were working with implementation team on shaping it, so it belongs to them. This doesn't have to be so for supportive domains such as databases but I would personally prefer that also (i.e. Postgresql instead Oracle db). There are many more reasons for this the…

> The major reason that proprietary software is so prominent in gov is corruption. I'd like to see more open source software in government, but the main reason we select proprietary solutions where I work is support. If more open source tools had support staff, maintenance agreements, etc. more government organizations (and businesses) would consider them viable. I may be fairly code-literate IT, but I don't understa…

Code is a liability. Teams which can encapsulate complexity for others are an asset.
Post reply on HN