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

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#31

Post by fsflover »

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…

> Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever

This is why Free Software Foundation Europe created a petition to make all publicly paid code public: https://publiccode.eu.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#32

Post by robocat »

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…

> If more open source tools had support staff, maintenance agreements, etc

Supply is surely not the issue, there is simply a lack of demand at a reasonable price.

The usual billion dollar failed proprietary IT project could pay for an equivalent open source implementation with equivalent support.

Most government simply doesn’t demand open source as a preference, and proprietary software suppliers overwhelmingly prefer to supply solutions that gift them vendor lock-in and monopoly rent extraction.

Edit: large software corporates demand open source suppliers, or they bring open source talent in-house: government should follow their example. Large software corporates do it right (e.g. I met someone working on PostgreSQL but getting paid by Microsoft the other day). Disclaimer: I am a co-founder of small proprietary software company with some government clients.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#33

Post by fsflover »

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.

Learned helplessness at its best.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#34

Post by majkinetor »

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…

That's common complaint. However, in my experience, proprietary support, especially on supportive technologies isn't that great either.

It also seems more likely to find local expert on FOSS technology given that barrier to entry is 0.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#35

Post by majkinetor »

fsflover wrote: post #31
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…

> Since its taxpayers money, any custom made software for gov MUST be FOSS or we can equally abandon any logic whatsoever This is why Free Software Foundation Europe created a petition to make all publicly paid code public: https://publiccode.eu .

Bulgaria seems to have it:

https://thepolicy.us/bulgaria-got-a-law-requiring-open-sourc...

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#36

Post by yholio »

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…

This is not only true for software developed with public funds, but with any software that becomes critical for providing public services, communication in particular.

Take for example the recent 5G spying debacle. US claims that the Chinese can insert snooping tech in their hardware, which is of course true. But the same thing is true for gear produced by American or European companies, so we are expected to choose based on the respectability of the political regime or some such and keep our fingers crossed.

This whole issue goes away if all critical infrastructure services, regardless of origin, can only operate in "source available" mode, if full FOSS is not economically feasible.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#37

Post by verisimilidude »

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…

"Support" is the excuse, but it turns out to be a bad excuse in practice. It's easy for government organizations to become small fish in a PaaS provider's big ocean of customers. Even major providers in this space, like Accela, tend to be horrible at providing actual support.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#38

Post by sjy »

spurdoman77 wrote: post #9
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…

My toughts: 2. Yes, in areas where other governments profit isnt your loss. I think there are lots of these. For example, if you have software which makes people more healthy, you wont lose if people in other countries get healthier as well. 3. Yes, similarly in many areas others auditing the software is harmless.

I have found that not everyone in the public sector would agree with (2). By giving away the software you lose the ability to sell it and recover some of the money you spent on it. Similarly, funding the development of proprietary software involves less capital expenditure because the developer can charge less than they spend and still profit by selling to others. I don’t believe that either of these arguments are sound, but it’s hard to respond to them when the experts on how software development should be done are the contractors who benefit from these arrangements.

Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS

#40

Post by mulmen »

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 love Postgres but it really does not do what Oracle does, even today and definitely not 15 years ago.

My tax dollars paid for the M1 Abrams and the USS Enterprise but they won’t let me take either for a joyride. I still derive utility from those expenditures. It’s the same with software.

If corruption is the problem I’m not sure how software licenses solve it.

Post reply on HN