You're looking for Germany and Suse Linux.
Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
81–90 of 151 posts
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't agree with this. Probably because you missed the "custom made" part. > secrecy and avoiding to give away software that is vital to national security. This would obviously be an exception and the code wouldn't be publicized. But that doesn't mean it can't be open-source to the government itself. > this would effectively prohibit companies who do proprietary work in the private sector to work with the governm…
So taking your example, the government could not use Windows unless Microsoft decides to open-source it? You realise how much infrastructure of the government runs on Windows right? And not just the operating system itself, but large parts of the software on top, you'd basically have to spend, I don't know dozens of billions to port it all to open-source software, just so you get the source code? Mind you that open-s…
>So taking your example, the government could not use Windows unless Microsoft decides to open-source it?
No, that's a strawman.
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#83Since 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.
>I love Postgres but it really does not do what Oracle does
Right, Postgres doesn't have aggressive salespeople trying to convince key decisionmakers in your enterprise to switch away from Oracle.
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#84Since 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…
>US claims that the Chinese can insert snooping tech in their hardware, which is of course true.
Huawei have been caught doing this (e.g. with the African Union HQ where they set everything up). This very much isn't true for a lot of Huawei equipment, though, where the source code is loaded manually, Huawei are very willing to allow manual inspection and the equipment forms part of the "dumb" routing infrastructure rather than the clever bits (where hacks would be easier to hide).
Trump wants everything gone, though. This is more an economic war than it is a spying war. National security simply provides a very convenient excuse to sell domestically and an automatic exemption from WTO rules.
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#85A lot of this discussion is thinking about government procurement, and yes absolutely, custom software that the government commissions should be OSS unless national security prevents it, and in that case, they and not the contractors should retain the copyright.
But there’s another issue: government should approach funding OSS like funding scientific or medical research. If you want to cure cancer, you find a government grant, write up a proposal, get your proposal scored, and if all goes well get to conduct your research. The exact same process should apply for OSS.
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#86Since 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 don't agree with this. The government should purchase software or services based on quality of the service provided and cost. It's nice if the software is open source, but it doesn't need to be just because tax payers pay for it. That's a total non-sequitur. If the government buys Mercedes cars it doesn't demand Mercedes to hand over the engineering designs for the cars. In fact in the entire military and intellige…
> If the government buys Mercedes cars it doesn't demand Mercedes to hand over the engineering designs for the cars.
> In fact in the entire military and intelligence space I don't even think this is practically possible due to secrecy and avoiding to give away software that is vital to national security.
The military is likely a case where the government does demand the engineering designs, production lines etc.
Open source doesn't have to mean public source, it means the user has access to the source and can modify the program if they want to. Seems like a perfectly reasonable approach for military or intelligence procurement.
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
> maybe the software on spy satellites shouldn't be available to everyone. I would agree if I felt it made security stronger. I don't feel that way, given I know now that satellite is likely running windows. OSS serving as a basis, not the end-implementation of a system is how it would work in practice. Just like it does now with contracted vendors.
The development machines used to create satellite software are likely running Windows, but the satellites are more likely to be running a real time OS such as VxWorks, Rodos, RTEMS, etc.
Linux will soon be a real-time OS, the RT patchset is going to be fully merged in the next one or two releases.
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#88Since 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…
You can also hire local Linux enthusiasts to create an in-house support team. That keeps the money for the support costs within the local economy and potentially they could even give back to the open source projects and represent your local interests within the open source community.
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree, just don't make it into something stupid like GPL. Also just because you've released the source after it doesn't make more secure, valuable or whatever. It should be developed in public to begin with.
It's the only way to avoid large companies turning it into their own projects and selling that for a large markup, with very little benefit to the taxpayer and some extra user freedom infringement sprinkled on top. Even something like LGPL allows taking freedoms from users and it could be blatantly seen from the Polish eDowod software issue (that's still ongoing).
The GPL doesn't prevent large companies from selling software. Mobile phone vendors sell Linux based Android devices all the time and Linux is GPL.
Re: Governments should adopt and invest in FOSS
#90"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).…
How did you square this goal with nearly every election expert (I'm talking academics here, not politicians) being against using more technology in elections?
There's a lot more to elections than just the tabulators.
Maps, databases, candidate filings, calendars, ballot production, voter guides, signature management, poll books, reports, ballot tracking, translation services, etc.
Since the collapse of the touchscreen business, the new business model is rent seeking on steroids. Charging jurisdictions per unit prices for every single one of those tasks and artifacts. Every voter every election, whether the voter cast a ballot or not.
On the stump, I explained that "citizen owned software" applies to both the intellectual property and the business model.