SquareCows

In a reply to @tom_watson and his latest twitter, I’d like to add my own two pence worth of input.

Firstly, some background on my stance on opensource. I’m a linux admin/user/developer, I’m very much pro-opensource, in fact I’m blogging right now from an opensource desktop with an opensource browser on an opensource blogging platform which is, of course, hosted on an opensource server. The big BUT is……. I like to remain objective, and whilst I will fight tooth and nail for opensource solutions wherever possible I do see the need for proprietary systems, in some cases. I still keep my hand in with Windows and I also use Mac OSX, so believe I can see positives and negatives in all platforms equally.

I’ve been generally pleased with the latest publication of the UK government’s stance for opensource solutions. It’s really promising and can be viewed here:

http://www.cio.gov.uk/transformational_government/open_source/index.asp

We’ll forgive the fact it’s hosted on a proprietary server using a proprietary web language for now.

Some key points in the article are:

“The Government will, wherever possible, avoid becoming locked in to proprietary software. In particular it will take exit, rebid and rebuild costs into account in procurement decisions and will require those proposing proprietary software to specify how exit would be achieved.”

Fantastic news for starters! One thing that always makes me want to shout and scream is the waste of taxpayers money on software licenses that are not needed. Take for example, the aforementioned URL which is hosted on a server with a licence, when there are a multitude of opensource platforms and software that can do the same for free.

Another great boost comes with the statement:

“Where there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products, open source will be selected on the basis of its additional inherent flexibility.”

This is exactly the key point of opensource, and shows Tom Watson and many other advocates of opensource (@johnlsheridan and @clairelait to name but two) in the government are starting to get the point. Basically, if you need a product to do something “special” to fit your needs, you have access to the code because it’s opensource, thus it is far cheaper getting a programer to develop the opensource product to enable the special feature than paying a larger organisation to code a bespoke change to their proprietary solution. I have run into this problem in a few companies with many products such as Sage, and it’s never an easy route getting them to change their product if you’re a smaller concern. Perhaps, not such a problem for the government, I admit, but a valid point. More to the point, it’s about empowerment – by utilising an opensource solution, you have access to the code-base and can make it do what you want. I would, however, like to see the government fully embrace opensource and contribute any software improvements back into the community. Then and only then will the true benefits of using this technology be seen, as this will allow other community members to improve additions even further. This simple cycle means that instead of a handful of coders working on your project you now have access to thousands of coders.

As for proprietary systems, yes they have their place. By no means could you swap all of the UK government onto opensource platforms tomorrow. Take for example the confusion of users being faced with a alien desktop – bad enough in a small office but in an organisation so vast it just wouldn’t work. However, there are ways to overcome this. A gentle introduction into opensource products can begin with a web browser. Take Firefox for example: most users won’t know or care it’s opensource. It does its job and requires minimum/no changes in the way they work. Stage two would be to bring in openoffice.org or similar products which would also allow users to work with openstandards with ease. Once a workforce is used to this new way of working, the replacement of other parts of the system become easier, and more intuitive as there is no reliance on only using one vendor’s products. Also opensource solutions often act the same on Windows, OSX or Linux platforms, so a user would see little difference once used to a product.

It’s easier server-side too. Most web users are also unaware that the vast majority of websites they view come from opensource platforms. The web is largely believed to be powered by Unix type systems. Its already there, tried tested and being used.

There are of course always sticking points…… The big one is Email! and Exchange server. This is where in my humble opinion opensource has still to meet the challenge. Exchange is an outstanding product and integrates seamlessly. Users are comfortable in this environment other proprietary systems such as blackberry enterprise server works well with it. It’s a hard one to replace and way beyond the scope of this article. There are projects out there that are starting to bridge this gap and with the force of the UK government backing them who knows what could be achieved.

In brief, lets get the systems working together in synergy. Lets bridge gaps, plug holes and move forward with the I.T. systems in the government without spending a fortune and blindly following one vendor’s recommendation. I really hope to see the government opening up and using the community as it’s been built. If you don’t know, ask. We don’t bite and would love to help – it’s what makes us tick. I’d love to see an opensource panel/forum where the government asks for suggestions from the community that build the solutions. After all, for the majority of government projects the opensource community can help and you won’t be pitched to by a sales person in a suit with a corporate expense account. Reach out and ask us – those who don’t understand and fear this kind of change are the hardest to ’sell’ to (in the non-monetary sense). It’s also hard to ’sell’ the merits of something that’s free – people are suspicious……it must be too good to be true.

Ask the community, its what we are here for.