Open Source in the Public Sector
August 28th, 2009 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar
The New Zealand Open Source Society is launching a project to demonstrate the viability of free open source software on public sector desktops.The Public Sector Remix project aims to help public agencies reduce the cost of desktop computing. The project will deploy free open source software for nominated staff to use for common business tasks and evaluate the results.
A number of central, regional and local government agencies are working together to run trials using free software for common desktop tasks, the society says.
The project was initiated locally, society president Don Christie says. He was unable to elaborate on agencies currently running trials apart from saying there were 14 and naming one which had given permission to be cited: New Zealand Post.
I’m a big open source fan. Not in an anti-MS way. I use MS products at both home and work. But what I love about open source software is that it is so easy to find third party plugins, enhancements or versions of software which better fits what you want.
“When we asked participants what people need, they told us that 90 percent of the people, 90 percent of the time, have pretty simple needs,” Christie, says. “Document management — word processing, spreadsheet, mail and calendar; a web browser to access their modern line-of-business applications; and access to legacy client– server applications.”
The scary thing is you can now do almost all of that just through Google!
Metiria Turei blogs on this issue also at Frog Blog.
Related posts:
- New Zealand Open Source Awards 2010
- Open Source Software
- Open Source Awards Finalists
- NZ Open Source Awards Night
August 28th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
If the public sector becomes excessively Microsoft-centric and I get brassed of with National (as I invariably will as I grow older and crankier), I would be strongly tempted to vote for the Greens because of their stance on this issue.
Microsoft and its mates had a great go at bullshitting everyone at a Govis conference several years ago then issuing a scare mongering paper about the legal evils of Open Source which the SSC adoped as ‘policy’ until challenged.
The key issue for New Zealand in my opinion is to hold firm on IP law and not be bullied around by the USA, the entertainment industry, Microsoft etc. The whole objective of pressure to change IP laws is to effect a transfer of enormous intangible wealth from countries like NZ to the big players. I see this sort of thing as the 21st Century version of the notorious Enclosures Acts of the 18th and 19th centuries.
Australia fell for this several years ago in its free trade agreement with USA. The negotiators had no appreciation of the enormous value of IP at stake and made too many concessions with respect to IP law leaving the law writers to repair the damage as best as they could.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
Good one, peterwn.
The reason government departments should be using Open Source is not because it’s cheap, or even because it’s free (speech); those are just side-effects. The reason the government should adopt open source is to allow their operations and data to be open – not locked in to proprietry formats.
And I agree about IP laws too… Software patents and draconian copyright have the ability to kill, or at least stifle, a lot of OSS software.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
The key issue on the desktop is training. 99% of people can sit down at a computer running Windows and MS Office and be productive immediately. Very few non-IT people will be able to do the same using a Linux desktop, so you need to train them, provide extra help desk services, and put up with users who are confused and less than fully productive while they come up to speed. This can be overcome in the long term… for instance if all public sector agencies use the same Linux desktop, or Linux becomes the standard in schools. But in the short term, it’ll be far more expensive than the cost of a few Windows licenses.
I suspect replacing MS Office with Open Office would be viable as the user interface is very similar.
Another consideration is application support. A public service agency I’m familiar with needed to upgrade its standard desktop earlier in the year in emergency circumstances, and could only upgrade to Win XP SP2 rather than SP3 due to application incompatibility. Linux? No chance! You’re going to need to either redevelop all your legacy applications at huge cost, or end up with a mixed fleet of Windows and Linux desktops that’ll vastly increase your support costs.
Then you need to consider software availability. There are a surprising number of people who do need to use specialised software and that’ll often only run on Windows. Again, you’ll end up with a mixed fleet.
And, lastly, you need to hire support technicians, helpdesk operators, and all the other support staff to keep this running. It is easier to hire Microsoft staff rather than their Linux equivalents. Again, that’ll sort itself out in the long term. But it is going to cost a lot in the short and medium term.
I looked at the issue in some depth when I worked in IT strategy for an Aussie state government. The only reason to explore Linux on the desktop was in order to shake some price reductions out of Microsoft.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I spent years locked into the corporate obsession with “safe” MS solutions. As they used to say, no IT manager ever got fired for buying IBM – more recently, substitute Microsoft.
Vote:Now with a switch to Apple, open source, and alternative applications available at much lower cost, productivity has soared for us.
We still have MS applications, thinking they would be needed for compatibility issues, but their use has simply withered and died. There are excellent alternatives, mostly with greater functionality and almost always so much easier to use. As a result, we are no longer updating MS products.
Like IBM before them, seems to me Microsoft has grown fat and happy while dominating their niche … not recognizing how much they piss people off with their arrogance and oddities … and not realizing how easy it really is to circumvent their snake oil marketing tactics.
Close behind them we have Adobe, also over-charging for cumbersome products that are being rapidly displaced in the marketplace by newer rivals, often with more targeted functionality without the overhead of the “bells and whistles” applications.
Trouble is, it takes a huge wrench to persuade people in authority to move out of their comfort zone and take a risk with innovation, especially in the Government sector where there is still a “blame” culture if there is a perception things went wrong, and an obsession with putting up retraining and suchlike barriers to change.
August 28th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
“You’re going to need to either redevelop all your legacy applications …”
Legacy applications are definitely part of the resistance to change problem. I endured 5 years until relatively recently being forced to tolerate an ancient MSDOS application that all the Australian based corporate experts said could not be improved upon. They even spent a very large sum on a project to try and develop an alternative from scratch to prove the point. The problem was, there was a far better option. Adjust the requirements just a little, and there were plenty of alternatives available for a fraction of the cost off the shelf. Most of them did many additional things, especially in the customer service and productivity areas. They did not do some of the unique internal corporate reporting things, though, so were rejected.
Eventually they had to change, as competitors made them look like dinosaurs when they were able to add many additional features to improve customer service, and left that company behind in crucial competitive areas. Stupid, when you think about it – but I guess they felt more comfortable resisting change. Personally, I was convinced there were kickbacks going on between the supplier/maintainer and the corporate IT department in Aussie, but to my knowledge that was never proven.
Many of the things we must do in business do not really need custom applications, and many recent applications permit customization of the front end, often by users, to address unique issues. Legacy applications need to be regularly challenged.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
“The reason the government should adopt open source is to allow their operations and data to be open – not locked in to proprietry formats.”
Excellent point – we have all paid for this data and we should have unfettered access to it.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
A couple of comments from the land of the BOFH.
Forgot cost or “free”. The issue is the total cost. Technically, there is nothing stopping anyone using open source. The practical problem issue is the cost (training, legacy issues, existing systems that only run on MS etc). There will be change but it will take time.
Likewise, most of those who are fiercely in support of open source (and there fiercely opposed to MS) have never had to support those who barely know how to turn on their computer
The hidden cost of moving to open source is that you need to hire the staff with the skills to support it which means more staff or making the MS support staff redundant. Try putting that in a business case.
Also, you’re still subject to the same changes and advances. Many govt organisations are rightly using Drupal now as a web CMS. If they’d gone open source say 3 years ago, they’d be committed to another flavour of CMS and would still have issues with migrating to another “free” system.
Open source does not mean free.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
One reason that open source exists is because there are proprietary software products available out there in the market . Open source is a hobby, and most participants do work for companies that develop proprietary software. Without their job, they wouldn’t be developing software. So, we should thank those proprietary vendors for their very existence that now we have open source.
Another point is that people who bitch about Microsoft, the message is, if you don’t like their products don’t buy them since they don’t come with a gun and force you to buy from them. They’re not entitled to your money, the same as you’re not entitled to their software products. If you want to buy, then buy, if you don’t, then find something else, since you’re not being coerced by the producer of the specific product to buy from them. It is free-market.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Good on ya DPF, for continuing this dialogue. Like many of the comments so far, It’s not M$, per se, I have a problem with, but the proprietary formats of the files. (Same holds true for many Apple apps)
I would be delighted in a world with a mix of open source and proprietary software, provided we had a standard open document format that wasn’t being highjacked/pressured by the big software companies.
As a long time Linux user, I’d love to use my favourite apps at work. I’d be much more productive.
I would disagree with Falafulu on one point though – we do have a gun to our head making us buy M$ products. have you tried to buy any hardware without paying the M$ tax in NZ? It’s nigh on impossible, unless you build from the components up. I’d like to see the Commerce Commission tackle that!
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Absolutely the Government should take an active stance in (further) promoting open source.
The biggest problem for switching MS businesses/departments/agencies to open source is the lack of an Outlook/Exchange equivalent. Many OSS-advocates completely misunderstand just how mission-critical Outlook is to businesses that use it. Replacing MS Office with OpenOffice is relatively easy in comparison. And don’t tell me “there are lots of great alternatives” – I’ve tried many and nothing comes close (yet).
I must admit I’ve always been a bit confused why there is so much effort in building open browsers, office suites and OS’s but so little in what is typically the central app in a MS Office company. I guess the answer now is to wait until a web-based collaboration app comes up to scratch, but I can’t see that happening for some years.
Regarding support (or lack of), it is often raised as an issue but in reality this is often illusory: http://www.burgess.co.nz/law/the-allure-and-illusion-of-commercial-software-support
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Chris
In Massachusetts several years the then state IT chief was promoting open source for precisely that reason – he saw it as a state sovereignty issue – that state data was held in open formats and not in proprietary formats such that commercial interests could hold the state to ransom. There was the most drastic reaction from Microsoft who feared for their monopoly. A story got planted (guess how) in the Boston Globe accusing the IT chief of improper travel expenses (for going to open source events). He was 100% vindicated but resigned and got out.
State politicians then passed legislation politicising the top IT decisions which would allow Microsoft and other vendors to influrence IT procurement and decision making by making appropriate campaign contributions. The State Governor (who is in charge of the executive) was not sufficiently powerful (from memory) to resist this whittling away of executive power.
So the bottom line is that Massachusetts has AFAIK remained a Microsoft desktop shop like most others.
Fortunately such tactics are not likely to succeed in NZ but Microsoft is doing all it can to hold in there. For example Victoria University is very much a Microsoft shop with student emails in recent times moved to a Microsoft run system and offers of cheap software for staff and students. Microsoft presumably still has global licencing with the Education Ministry so schools do not actually have to pay a ‘visible’ fee for each instance of software used. These all encourage MS lockin as the it minimises the number of people who are exposed to Linux desktop and Open Office.
It does seem that two particular lock-in areas are MS Publisher for which there is no close open source equivalent and Outlook/Exchange. While MS dare not muck around with the SMB (Samba) server interface (Unix / Linux file servers delivering to Windows desktops are common), they probably play cat and mouse with the Exchange server to cause open source problems.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
@DavidP – you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The only thing i would add is the inability of one group to support an “open source” system built by someone else.
I’ve experienced this a couple of times in the past – because of the flexibility of open source, it’s almost impossible to support. It’s like asking a developer to support someone else’s code. If they’re given the choice they will rewrite it rather than try and decipher a previous developer’s thinking.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Frog said…
have you tried to buy any hardware without paying the M$ tax in NZ?
Frog, the same goes for any product that is available in the market. You’re not entitled to the hardware that you intended to buy and so as the Microsoft products that may be available to you. You’re only entitled to the products or services from the labour of your 2 hands. Anything else is a choice. If you’re hungry, then you’re not entitled to someone else’s produce. However you can buy that product from the producer provided that he is not being forced with a gun to sell it to you. If he doesn’t want to sell it to you in the first place, then you have no right to lobby someone to make him to agree to your wishes or demands that the product be available to you to buy.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
Peterwn said…
It does seem that two particular lock-in areas are MS Publisher for which there is no close open source equivalent and Outlook/Exchange.
Peter, that’s a socialist way of thinking. There is no such thing as lock-in. You’re not being forced with a gun at all to buy that product . It was your choice to buy that product. Had you not bought it in the first place (which you did voluntarily), then you wouldn’t be whinging about being lock-in. You chose to buy it , end of story. There is no obligation from any producer out there to produce some products for your needs. You can only buy what is available to you in the market, not what you wish that should be available in the market. So, the choice to buy was your own making. You made yourself lock-in (as you labeled) to a product via your own choosing and any other concerns of yours about the product (such as a shortfall in the functionality of the product) is not the fault of the producer of the product. Your problems are your own making and I don’t see, why you cannot understand that very simple principle.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Falafulu I don’t know if you understand accurately what Frog was talking about in regards to the “M$ tax”. It is extremely hard to purchase a laptop that does not come pre-loaded with Windows (desktops you can get custom built and some netbooks do use a Linux OS). If you have purchased a laptop (or a desktop/netbook) with Windows installed and do not accept Microsoft’s EULA it is still extremely hard to get refunded from Microsoft and the PC manufacturer.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Do you understand people’s comments about document formats?
The business world runs on Microsoft Office. If you want to be able to exchange documents with another firm, they will expect Microsoft Word, which is a proprietary, undocumented format. This is the lock-in people are talking abou.: Microsoft don’t force you to buy their software at gunpoint, because they’ve created a marketplace where the options are (1) buy their software, or (2) don’t do business with any other company.
OpenOffice.org is a free-software replacement for Microsoft Office that is able to deal with Microsoft formats only through laborious reverse-engineering on the part of many programmers. A viable alternative to Office is Microsoft’s biggest worry, and they’ve shown they are willing to go to great lengths to squash any useful open document formats.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Bullion, you’ve just restated what I pointed out in my messages without you being aware of it or chose not to.
You said…
It is extremely hard to purchase a laptop that does not come pre-loaded with Windows…
There are also many goods and merchandises in the market that I want to buy only parts of those and not the whole, but the fact that I just want to buy only parts and not the whole, doesn’t mean that the producer (or its business partners) of those product’s are at fault here. I can list you thousands including stuff from the supermarket that came pre-packaged in ways that I never liked . Producers (MS in this case) will do it if the market wants it, but they won’t if some whingers insist that the products should be packaged in a certain way. The rights to the products/properties are theirs alone to decide, and not you. They will bend to suit the market’s demands but not when a few (not representative of the market) whinges that their wishes of how the products should be packaged are not being met. If the market decided that laptops that come pre-installed with Windows is something they don’t want, then definitely, you will see Microsoft and its business partners move to fulfill that demand. Since we don’t see that happening except a few whingers, Microsoft and its business partners will continue to do what they think is best for them. Remember, that Windows (and Microsoft’s business partners) is solely the property of Microsoft, and you have no right to demand them to package it according to your wishes. If MS business partners don’t like the way MS is doing business with them, they have a choice to walk and find another business partner, but most of them don’t, they choose to stick with MS. There is no force being used, only market power, which is something that is earned.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Repton, do you go to your car dealer and ask if an engine from one manufacturer can be installed in a body of a car from a different manufacturer simply because you fancy hybrid cars?
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Falafulu Fisi asks Repton,
“Do you go to your car dealer and ask if an engine from one manufacturer can be installed in a body of a car from a different manufacturer simply because you fancy hybrid cars?”
Analogies are hazardous. But what if Exxon Mobil were able to browbeat all the car manufacturers into installing their patented fuel filler tube that would accept the nozzles only at Exxon Mobil petrol bowsers?
And every so often they’d change the fuel, so only newer engines could run on it, and then there’d be yet another patented, incompatible fuel filler tube?
Even in the USA we love so much to deride, IBM got done for such behaviour decades ago.
=====gander
Vote:=====Linux user since 2002
=====ACT voter since 1996
August 28th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Don’t get me wrong, MS have made some truly excellent products over the years. The latest version of Windows sadly isn’t one of them, and it is increasingly difficult to buy a new machine without it. So our options are to pay do downgrade to XP (why should we pay for an “inferior” product? Because it’s better) or not pay and use open source. Or the third option (the one I took) is to buy a mac instead.
Mac OS X is highly stable and not only does it support all of the MS functionality if you prefer to pay for an office program, it is also compatible with most open source software. The best advantage over Linux is that you don’t have to piss round to make that one driver or one program work – it really does just work out of the box. In my view it is the best of both worlds. With Wine becoming more stable, there are fewer programs every day that actually require Windows to run, meaning that the days of the propriety operating system are numbered.
I understand that the soon to be released Windows 7 is to be unix-based. I believe that this is because of the huge success of OSX, and really hope that it takes off. It may make a Windows user out of a reformed Mac user yet.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Open source isn’t the problem. Support is the problem.
gazzmaniac. If you don’t like Windows installed, ring Microsoft and get a refund, YES, they will refund you.
Windows 7 is fantastic. Exchange 2010 is awesome, this year is great.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
It is not unix based… what are you smoking.
Vote:August 28th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
“and they’ve shown they are willing to go to great lengths to squash any useful open document formats.”
Yeah, like saving documents in xml, am I right?
Vote:August 29th, 2009 at 10:10 am
A couple of things…
Yeah, like saving documents in xml, am I right?
Yeah, with giant blobs of undocumented binary code included, am I right?
Windows 7 isn’t UNIX based, but the last few Windows versions have had a free add-on called “Services For Unix” which layered some UNIX interfaces on top of Windows. Possibly a cause for confusion.
Also, Microsoft will NOT refund you for bundled versions of Windows – I’ve tried. Possibly if you escalate it and hound it, but my week trying was fruitless. They definitely don’t have a procedure to follow to get one.
One reason that open source exists is because there are proprietary software products available out there in the market . Open source is a hobby, and most participants do work for companies that develop proprietary software. Without their job, they wouldn’t be developing software.
A lot of OSS contributors do contribute in their spare time, yes. And I’m sure a lot of them work as programmers as a day job. I’m one of them. I work for an e-commerce store that extensively uses OSS software (LAMP, Zend framework, Propel, Komodo) and a large part of our code is technically propriety (we have no plans to release/sell it). However, we’ve fixed multiple bugs and added a few features to the software we use and submitted the changes back to the respective project, although we’re not required to do so.
It’s in our businesses best interests that this software is stable and free and we’re happy to contribute to that.
There are also OSS developers that are paid by companies to contribute. SUSE, Redhat and Canonical (Ubuntu) pay developers to work on important OSS apps. Linus was paid by CPU manufacturer Transmeta, Intel, AMD etc… pays kernel developers too – All of these companies have interests in seeing Linux, now becoming an enterprise staple, succeed (and support their products)
Vote:August 30th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
Infused – I am not smoking anything. A computer salesman on the Gold Coast mentioned that the new Windows would be substantially based on unix, and maybe my mistake was actually believing a salesman. It would be good for the new version of Windows to be substantially compatible with UNIX software, that way MS could reconfirm themselves as the software of choice for most consumers.
Vote:I don’t disagree with computers coming with an operating system built in, however the mechanism for getting it not included should be at the point of sale not several weeks later if you are lucky. And IMHO, OSX is still the best operating system available today.