Gov to be ran on 100% free software
Premise: Software is licensed to distribute the overhead of its initial development, the cost of which few organizations could afford. Because all government software purchases are made with public funds, the public should be licensed to use it.
Proposition: All future investments are to be made in software that is licensed to grant use and source code access to all governed subjects. Security will be maintained with the use of trusted concepts, including asymmetric cryptography, and not rely on the obscurity of closed source software. Where viable further development of existing operating systems and applications will be funded. Where not viable, or where competition is lacking, new projects will be originated. No patents will be granted for pubic works. Release of existing patents will be used as bargaining in the contract bidding process.
Opinion: The ability of corporations and individuals to support themselves by developing software will not be impeded. On the contrary, the funding will be fair market representations of what the development is worth. The only thing that will change is that public will receive direct benefit from having paid for the software. The result will be a new renaissance in software advancement. We will also realize boons in hardware utilization and life cycle extension, helping to relieve the e-waste crisis.
jerrad
Also, for those who argue "there is no free lunch", I don't think you understand the open source development model.
Open source is developed mostly by professionals for their own use. It follows that this model is about making quality software, not money. This is a point many seem to miss. OSS is built by developers, for developers, because it is the best product for the job.
10 days ago
jerrad
Obviously, everything I've said is an oversimplification, and there is much more to security than this. But for the sake of not filling this forum with only my comments, I'll leave it at that for now, until what I've said is debated.
10 days ago
jerrad
It's true that Windows has come a long way in regards to security. Microsoft has done a decent job implementing true multi-user support, sandboxing Internet Explorer, and creating a basic privilege escalation system, but the base system is still flawed, and will be flawed until it's rebuilt from the ground-up.
10 days ago
jerrad
Yet another good reason for the enhanced security of Linux(this applies specifically to Ubuntu) is the state of the network ports. In Windows, many network ports are left open by default, allowing crackers an entrance into the system. In Ubuntu, this is not so. All ports are closed by default. Because of this, unlike Windows, Ubuntu doesn't even need a firewall.
10 days ago
jerrad
So, if an application such as, say, Firefox, was cracked, the cracker would have access only to Firefox. In order to gain control of the entire system, the cracker would have to crack each consecutive layer, increasing the odds of successfully taking control of the system exponentially. In a monolithic system, on the other hand, each layer basically has full access to every other layer.
10 days ago
jerrad
A monolithic design is problematic for a similar reason. There are many different layers in an operating system. At the heart of these layers is the kernel, at the top is the user applications, and there are many layers in between. In a modular system, such as Linux, each layer is restricted to access only its own layer, with limited access to the layer directly underneath itself.
10 days ago
jerrad
A single-user system, because it was designed for only one user, does a poor job of protecting a user's files from other users on the system. And, because the administrator and user are the same person, this gives the user unlimited power over the system. This is a problem, because if that user's account is cracked, the cracker has whatever privileges the user has.
10 days ago
jerrad
Secondly, the security of Linux can be better explained by its inherent design. Linux was originally created to be a multi-user, multi-tasking, modular operating system. Windows, while it has come a long way, is still very monolithic, and based on a single-user system. There are several inherent problems with this design.
10 days ago
jerrad
Secondly, the security of Linux can be better explained by its inherent design. Linux was originally created to be a multi-user, multi-tasking, modular operating system. Windows, while it has come a long way, is still very monolithic, and based on a single-user system. There are several inherent problems with this design.
10 days ago
jerrad
Linux has less desktop marketshare than Windows. But desktops are not the only types of computers. We also have servers, where Windows does not hold a monopoly. Servers are arguably more important than desktop computers. Linux is the most widely-used operating system by large corporate servers. Google runs Linux on their servers. Crackers definitely have enough motivation to crack Linux.
10 days ago
jerrad
For those who claim a "lack of security" in open source, allow me to clarify this issue. Open source constitutes more than just operating systems, but operating systems are central to most debates on this issue, so I will be comparing the security of Windows vs. Linux distributions.
Some claim Linux has less malware simply because it has less marketsare. This logic fails for two reasons. (cont)
10 days ago
JohnStanton
The good news about open source software (OSS) is - it's open. The bad news is - it's still software! Global OSS debates ended 6-7 years ago with OSS declared mainstream by tech surveys around 2004-5. Without raising the software engineering and management bar in the government w/ OSS knowledge, skills, abilities and cultures, all the fed is going to do with OSS is shoot their feet off, as usual.
28 days ago
zzolo
Please look at the recent histories of Brazil, Venezuela, and others to see that this can and should work. This is the most important issue. This means so many more thing than just migrating machines off of Windows.
about 1 month ago
3rdtechie
Max security is not needed in all gov't offices. Many office computers are used for basic functionality-office productivity, e-mail, & web browsing. Open source software could suffice, & save $millions. They're often more secure than MS Office, Outlook, and IE. Windows' often attacked with viruses thru these, where Linux has none. Windows runs as a vulnerable default root user, Linux doesn't.
about 1 month ago
kmac2000
I have been involved in a large open source deployment for 4 years. Open standards is much more important then free. This would ensure that in the future, decisions could be based on need, not on what was used last year. Proprietary software has its place, but “free” as in freedom is much more important then “free” as in free beer.
about 1 month ago
tmcclung
This is a horrible idea. You should use the best tools for a job and not make blanket statements that anything you pay for is a waste of money. I can't tell you how many times I've used free open source software and it's turned out to be a complete waste of time and energy.
about 1 month ago
gfb
I work for the DoD (Civil Servant NOT contractor) security is a big deal. Which is why many free software apps go unused. While MS may be the great evil fact is it is the most secure and MS is responsive to our needs. Now...if we are talking about in general the USG (United States Government) should ALWAY purchase the IP Rights then I agree....BUT...that comes at an exspense.
about 1 month ago
GodOfCheese
This is at best a foolhardy crusade and at worst a spectacular waste of government funds.
The government has serious challenges ahead of it in the next term. How can anyone honestly take this expensive, philosophical jihad seriously?
Industry outsiders often forget that software acquisition is only a fraction of its cost. Retraining gov't employees is not cheap.
about 1 month ago
John.Argent
cant completey agree with this one, some programs are specialty items and do not need to be freely available, but I think it should be mandatory that if an open source of free is available use it, windows vista $399, Ubuntu free, tech support - feds ussually have there own for security reasons, use linux need a program bid it out and have it written
about 1 month ago
frisco
@RichardBronosky If i was an engineer? I work on brain implants, am a tech founder, and have been hacking my whole life. Don't assume that--"if you were an engineer" is one of the worst insults you could give someone technical.
By "secure" I meant in capability. That we're able to do things, or the methods we employ, themselves are secret. The NSA could have broken RSA for all we know.
about 1 month ago
johnwedd
i think a grant foundation that funds full time developers to work on, and moderate open source projects would be the best, this coupled with a new policy that Open Source Products are evaluated and considered as well as the commercial products. Fair and Even opportunity for open source to be put to use SHOULD it be better than its commercial cousins.
about 1 month ago
crawford
Commercial software and "free" software are only different business models of which free software in my opinion provides less reliability and accountability. By free, it means paying random people with random level of expertise for random quality and accountability. Security is a cat and mouse game. The many eyes on code to make the software more secure is an absurd theory and dead argument.
about 1 month ago
tyme
I disagree. The government, just like any business or institution, needs to be able to use whatever software best suits their needs - whether that is open source or not. I am a Linux user and OSS advocate, but forcing them to use a specific type of software could create more problems if that software does not deliver the needed features.
about 1 month ago
DCdawg
This is not possible. The government has special processes that are required by law that cannot be served by open source. There are so many laws and rules that the government has to follow, going all open source is not feasible. HOWEVER, I do think the government should use open source when it can!
about 1 month ago
patja
The "premise" that software is licensed just to distribute its R&D costs is fundamentally flawed. Corporations are not designed to "support themselves", they are designed to maximize shareholder value and seek to grow profits. This idea is a pipe dream of the socialist free software movement.
about 1 month ago
mrbriguy007
The DLA manages over 5 million items and over $30 billion in sales / year using SAP, which is developed by a *German* company, and GOTS (Goverment Off The Shelf software) - http://www.dla.mil/facts.aspx. I challange you to name a free ERP solution that can handle that level of throughput with identical reliablity, or describe how you could convince a German company to release is source.
about 1 month ago
RichardBronosky
@frisco, no need to move 100s of 1000s of machines to OSS. [P1] This only applies to new expenditures.
[P2] OSS is more secure. If you were an engineer you'd understand that you do not have to keep source private to use the app privately.
[P3] OpenOffice has all the functionality needed by most. Adding what it lacks could be funded with what we spend in 1 yr for commercial licenses.
about 1 month ago
zellyn
@jdarius It may not be a logically necessary conclusion, but it's how many feel: any software developed with public money should become a public asset. Partly for practical reasons — so various government agencies don't have to pay for the same software over and over — and partly for idealistic reasons: I think it's cool that countries can benefit from sharing software.
about 1 month ago
wappiejones
Ultimately all software will be produced on OSS model. This is inevitable. Lack of information on available alternatives prevent the adoption of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in several government departments and agencies.
The resposnsibility of a competent CTO includes carrying out ongoing audit of available OSS alternatives to every software in use in govt.
about 1 month ago
GiGaBiTe
@frisco, Open source software is usually far more secure due to the millions of people around the world constantly providing feedback to it, in which it constantly gets updates to fix holes and problems. Closed source software will only have a severe flaw revealed when someone eventually does hack into it, and it's already too late by that time.
about 1 month ago
Sll
Agreed that the government should use OSS (although Free software sounds too much like Stallman's crusade, and I really do hate his extremism on the matter). In addition to that, the government should use only open standards for A/V (AAC and H.264) and documents (ODF or OOXML and PDF).
sll
about 1 month ago
frisco
Two more points: what about Windows? you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to move literally hundreds of thousands of machines away from Microsoft platforms in the near future, if ever; it would require a complete reengineering of the entire gov IT infrastructure. Also, the vast majority of _custom_ software is going to be secure--and the CIA and DOD would _never_ give that away.
about 1 month ago
frisco
This is totally unrealistic. The government would be left with knockoff clones like OpenOffice, and no company will develop software that they'll be compelled to give away. MAYBE you can require that software _developed_ for government (like what?) is released OS, but trying to require that the proprietary software they use gets OS'd is madness.
about 1 month ago
RichardBronosky
@sebourne, I don't honestly expect the corporation who makes the current dominant software to make a reasonable offer until the inevitable loss of their market share happens. If you think that open source software is products no one wants, you have been mislead. Novel bought Suse. Sun bought MySQL. Yahoo! bought Zimbra. The RedHat project became a major corp. Google, Yahoo!, etc. run on all OSS.
about 1 month ago
sebourne
Socialized software development? Nobody will want to sell to the government because they can make more money the way it is now, and government will get stuck having to use software nobody else wanted to buy.
about 1 month ago
RichardBronosky
@frisco, any organization or individual would be welcome to place a bid for offering their software under an acceptable license. This very well could result is current (or special off-shoot) versions of well known commercial office suites and operating systems becoming open source software.
As a boon school children would no longer have to use outdated software due to licensing/budget issues.
about 1 month ago
RichardBronosky
@jdarius, what is the problem statement that the internet solves? Is it not by the same logic a solution in search of a problem? I expect my that proposal, like the internet, would yield benefits that could not be imagined before its fruition.
about 1 month ago
frisco
Would this proposition imply that Microsoft Office would become off-limits?
about 1 month ago
jdarius
> Because all government software purchases are made with public funds, the public should be licensed to use it.
Not logically valid.
What is the problem statement that your suggestion solves? You sound like you have a solution in search of a problem.
about 1 month ago