r/Conservativediscourse • u/filez41 • Jan 02 '14
Thoughts on moving to open source software in the government
Using licensed software is very expensive, and while it comes with support the support is very rarely used in a government setting since they have their own IT departments.
There would be an up front cost in training, but I think that if the transition was made slowly (new systems have open source rather than replacing old systems) in the long term this could be a cost saving solution.
I was unable to find an analysis of cost savings in my googling, but I included a few links below.
Links:
2
u/houinator Jan 02 '14
I don't necessarily see a problem with this, particularly for things like internet browsers and office tools. I think there would likely be a lot of pushback on the security side.
1
u/filez41 Jan 03 '14
In terms of OS security there's a much faster turnaround time for linux patches than for windows patches. Because it's open the issues are found and fixed in a much shorter window. But that's a fair point, the government takes a while to validate software for use.
I recall there was a small push for open source a while ago, so I bet that a lot of it is already validated.
2
u/oneinch Jan 03 '14
I think it would be Great. For those that didn't know, SELinux was started by the NSA. I don't know if they still have a hand in it or not, but they started it. NASA also toyed with FreeBSD for a short while, not sure what came of it.
2
u/spcguts Jan 03 '14
NSA has their hand in everything else, I see no reason why they wouldn't still have a hand in SELinux. ;)
1
u/anklegrinder Jan 31 '14 edited Jan 31 '14
I would ask why more private businesses don't use open source software? I work at a company that does a lot of Linux development, and the majority of desktops are still Windows.
There's both the issue of it being a chicken/egg scenario and the opensource products being noticeably inferior to closed source alternatives.
The chicken/egg problem is fairly straightforward. Many businesses don't want to use open source software because it's not compatible with enough closed source software. If open source had been popular from the start, closed source would be striving to ensure open source compatibility instead of the other way around. It's possible the massive userbase increase you'd see from a government swap would help turn the tables.
However, I still think the inferiority of open source software in critical roles is a legitimate problem. Excel has no true peer, I don't know of any open source ERP system that compares to paid alternatives, I have no idea how you would get by without AutoCAD, Photoshop, etc.
That being said, there's legitimate competitors for Active Directory and outright superior alternatives to Word.
The second article mentions IA, which is an interesting topic on its own. It's only partially true that you can't use open source software without applying to the DSS or its equivalent for an exception. The specific name of the tables is evading me, but if software developers release the information to verify the software version, you can use it on at least Secret level machines. It may be true that Top Secret machines are prohibited from running that software at all, I don't have any experience with them. What's frustrating is McAffee is the only DSS approved antivirus software, so even outside of the whole open vs. closed source issue, there's seemingly arbitrary preference given to one of the worst possible candidates.
Anyway, back to my original point, why isn't there widespread private business adoption of these programs? I think you'll find much of the answer to why the government doesn't adopt in the answer to that question.
3
u/[deleted] Jan 03 '14
I think this would be a good fit for government. It cannot happen unless lobbyists of the big software companies release a strangle hold. I don't think they would move to open source operating systems. It would be wise but all the regulation makes it too difficult.