There goes Open-Source in the White House

[krackedpress]

The new chief information officer for the federal government - White House Chief of Information Technology - is a former Microsoft Executive [and assistant to Bill Gates].

Since all these big wigs in Microsoft get large blocks of stock in the company, which he most likely still has, this new guy in the White House as a good reason to keep the government using MS products over free and open source ones.

So I say; there goes the government's push to go open source and start using packages like LibreOffice.

Well, MS tries to control the world's computers, and now they have a man in the White House to control the government's computer system and other technology to MS's favor.

[Onyeibo_Oku1]

Is this for real?

This is terrible news

[Tom_Davies]

Hi
There are other countries in the world and not all of them follow the US
slavishly. It's not "the" government, it's just "a" government.

Many other countries push OpenSource or at least non-MS, sometimes just because
they don't see any need to make a foreign company richer, sometimes to support
local languages and culture better.

Brasil is not small and has a huge and specifically LibreOffice community.
Germany and Italy are also strongly supportive of LibreOffice apparently along
with France. Most of Europe has 20% of the market using OpenOffice or
LibreOffice. Spanish governments (4/5 of them) put resources into developing
their own variants of Ubuntu/Debain i think the other went with Arch. The
Scientific & Technological Research Council of Turkey develop Pardus which was
one of the first distros to have LibreOffice by default. Vietnam and many other
countries are supporting a strong push towards OpenSource. The "One Laptop Per
Child" programme has helped children get a better education and is based on
OpenSource.

There is a lot of positive OpenSource action going on around the world which
might leave corporate America lagging behind!

Regards from
Tom

[Stan_Goodman]

The problem is not with the Chief Information Officer, buy with the Chief Community Organizer that appointed him knowing that the CIO is a MS shill, and with those who elected a know-it-all know-nothing to move into the White House.

[Tom_Davies]

Hi
+1
But to be fair on them they do need to push US companies into becoming more
profitable and MS has not grown as fast as they hoped in certain areas such as
tablets, netbooks (and even notebooks), mobile devices, smart-phones, servers,
Cloud, search engine and have lost ground in areas such as web-browsers. Can
almost imagine them - Oh no! What to do?? Quick get an MS person into the White
House.

Oddly they don't seem to realise that they could make other US companies even
more profitable by promoting OpenSource and forcing MS to compete more fairly on
grounds of functionality rather than sheer might.

All just my own opinion of course. If i get thrown off the list then at least
it was fun!

Good luck and regards from
Tom

[krackedpress]

How real it is and going to become depends on the new Chief of Technology.

Here is the article about the naming of the new Chief.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/04/technology/white-house-picks-new-information-chief.html?_r=3&ref=technology

[Don_C_Myers]

Well said Stan.

[tomcloyd]

Thanks, Tom, for this hope-inducing update. Fascinating!

Tom C.

[upscope]

+1 our government is looking for big budget cuts. One would be replace
all the MS stuff with open source software.

[planas]

Tom and all

Hi
There are other countries in the world and not all of them follow the US
slavishly. It's not "the" government, it's just "a" government.

Many other countries push OpenSource or at least non-MS, sometimes just because
they don't see any need to make a foreign company richer, sometimes to support
local languages and culture better.

Brasil is not small and has a huge and specifically LibreOffice community.
Germany and Italy are also strongly supportive of LibreOffice apparently along
with France. Most of Europe has 20% of the market using OpenOffice or
LibreOffice. Spanish governments (4/5 of them) put resources into developing
their own variants of Ubuntu/Debain i think the other went with Arch. The
Scientific & Technological Research Council of Turkey develop Pardus which was
one of the first distros to have LibreOffice by default. Vietnam and many other
countries are supporting a strong push towards OpenSource. The "One Laptop Per
Child" programme has helped children get a better education and is based on
OpenSource.

There is a lot of positive OpenSource action going on around the world which
might leave corporate America lagging behind!

Regards from
Tom

________________________________
From: webmaster for Kracked Press Productions <webmaster@krackedpress.com>
To: LibreO - Users Global <users@global.libreoffice.org>
Sent: Fri, 5 August, 2011 12:39:47
Subject: [libreoffice-users] There goes Open-Source in the White House

The new chief information officer for the federal government - White House Chief
of Information Technology - is a former Microsoft Executive [and assistant to
Bill Gates].

Since all these big wigs in Microsoft get large blocks of stock in the company,
which he most likely still has, this new guy in the White House as a good reason
to keep the government using MS products over free and open source ones.

So I say; there goes the government's push to go open source and start using
packages like LibreOffice.

Well, MS tries to control the world's computers, and now they have a man in the
White House to control the government's computer system and other technology to
MS's favor.

-- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

I can see another reason for say Turkey or Russia using FOSS is that
they can create a fork for local specialized needs of major FOSS
project. I expect as more people get comfortable with FOSS solutions we
will see more of this. It has started with Linux but could include LO,
OO, Calligra where a specialized version is developed.

[toki]

If the united states government, or the government of the united kingdom
ruled today that effective 1 January 2012, only FLOSS may be used by the
government, and closed source, proprietary software was banned, the
budget savings would, at the earliest, be visible in 2016, and probably
not until 2020, or even 2025. This is simply due to the unbreakable
contracts various software vendors have with those governments.
Contracts that requires the vendors to be paid, regardless of whether or
not the product meets the contract specifications, assuming it is
delivered in the first place.

Long term, FLOSS saves money. Short term, it doesn't save money, and can
be described as costing money.

jonathon

[planas]

Actually changing to another application/OS, etc will require a learning
curve at the beginning. The advantage that FOSS has is the primary cost
to using is the learning curve in most cases. I think often the actual
costs of switching forget if I switched from LO to KOffice I have a
learning curve, I do not know KOffice so I need to learn its quirks to
become proficient. If a purchase is involved it just adds to the cost.

[Stan_Goodman]

Both the above responses are, of course, correct in pointing out that switching to open software would entail costs. But nobody has suggested junking all the Windows seats in the US Government and switching to FOSS. It would be rational to install FOSS in newly established offices instead of Windows, and let the phenomenon expand naturally, while getting MS on its toes, with a visible competitor. In any case, making the White House a subsidiary of Microsoft doesn't seem to do any good at all.

[Tom_Davies]

Hi
Yes, hence the use of TCO (=Total Cost of Ownership).

Macs usually have a much lower TCO than MS because systems are less prone to
malware and need less maintenance. Also they are a status symbol so who cares
if it actually works or not?

TCO is not just licensing and re-training costs but includes a ton of other
factors. Such as time taken to roll it out across a large number of computers
along with patches, updates, settings. New or updated Support Contracts or
in-house IT Staff training.

Of course OpenSource can usually mitigate against the re-training costs by
allowing products to be installed alongside existing & competing ones allowing
migration in a series of steps
1. Old system is kept as default so people can play with the newer one and
slowly get used to it. Training for a percentage of staff in rotation.
Roll-out can be done over a period of time. Compatibility checks.

2. Newer system is made default but older one is still available, just more
difficult to get at. Follow-up training. Again this switch can be staggered
across the organisation rather than all-at-once.

3. Older system stops being installed on newer or refurbished machines.

Costs will be higher, particularly in the 1st stage which can push people into
rushing it which ramps the costs up even more. Imo the 2nd stage is the one
worth giving the most time to. The first stage needs a fair fraction of that
time just to make sure things will work and that there are enough trained people
to help colleagues if there is trouble but it's only at the 2nd stage where
people will really take it seriously or even notice it at all.

Elected governments are seldom interested in longer term results. They need
fast results in order to get re-elected. It's tricky to get a longer-term view
without compromising important values. The Uk attempts it reasonably well but
it's far from perfect. Anyway the only relevance that sort of thinking has is
on how to set-up our own BoD and i think that's better discussed on a different
list.

Regards from
Tom

[soumalya_ray]

this post is getting very interesting

[krackedpress]

I started this thread saying that with a guy at the helm that was a MS high executive and he would not be the one who would nudge the people under him towards using non-MS packages.

Yes, switching from MS Office to LibreOffice will cost time in man hours to learn how to use it instead of MSO. Yes, there will be costs to "export" all of MSO complex formatted files to version that are 100% readable by non-MS packages. Yes there are a lot of different costs in switching even if the software is free.

I agree that having the original software and the new open-source one sitting side by side on the same machine may help. Having all new or refurbished machines include "only" open-source versions could help.

The big issue is to always spend the time and effort to train people in the use of these new options. I did not switch to OOo/LO from MSO over night. As I learned to use open-source versions, over paid ones, I slowly stopped using packages like MSO in favor of the open-source replacements. The final "blow" to MSO was when I decided to use Ubuntu as my default desktop OS.

In the end, if we want our local, regional, or country governments, to use open source we need to voice our support for it. The more people who tell our governments that we want to see them use open-source packages, the more likely that they will hear what we are saying and see if it can be done. If our elected officials do not do what we want them to do, we elect others we think will.

As stated before, the issue of long term contracts for MSO and other packages can be a problem. But if and when those contracts are up for renewal, we need to tell our governments to not renew them. If they are not, over time all of these contracts will go away and then there will be none in the way of using open-source alternatives.

[Tom_Davies]

Hi
Moving to OpenSource for a type of product is a one-time major migration but it
can be done in baby-steps.

Staying with proprietary systems ensures that a similar level of disruption is
guaranteed every 3-5 years as companies need to sell their new product. No
baby-steps, just disruption.

Favouring 1 US company at the expense of all the rest does seem annoyingly
inevitable but it's not particularly new. At least now it is more transparent.
But even so, a lot of US companies and organisations choose OpenSource
particularly for servers, "mission critical" machines, networking and
infrastructure.

Regards from
Tom

[Dennis_E_Hamilton]

Although discussion of migration strategies and switching costs is interesting, I want to come back to the odd title of this thread.

To the best of my knowledge, what the US Federal CIO is concerned with does not directly govern whether or not Open Source is used in the White House. As I recall, the current use of open-source predates the appointment of the outgoing Federal CIO.

I think you will find this blog helpful: <http://www.whitehouse.gov/tech>. One great thing is the donation of code back to the Drupal project, the second of which occurred in February 2011.

I would be surprised to see this change under the current White House occupant.

- Dennis

[planas]

Hi

Hi
Moving to OpenSource for a type of product is a one-time major migration but it
can be done in baby-steps.

Staying with proprietary systems ensures that a similar level of disruption is
guaranteed every 3-5 years as companies need to sell their new product. No
baby-steps, just disruption.

Favouring 1 US company at the expense of all the rest does seem annoyingly
inevitable but it's not particularly new. At least now it is more transparent.
But even so, a lot of US companies and organisations choose OpenSource
particularly for servers, "mission critical" machines, networking and
infrastructure.

Regards from
Tom

________________________________
From: webmaster for Kracked Press Productions <webmaster@krackedpress.com>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Sat, 6 August, 2011 14:17:58
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] There goes Open-Source in the White House

> Hi
> Yes, hence the use of TCO (=Total Cost of Ownership).
>
> Macs usually have a much lower TCO than MS because systems are less prone to
> malware and need less maintenance. Also they are a status symbol so who cares
> if it actually works or not?
>
> TCO is not just licensing and re-training costs but includes a ton of other
> factors. Such as time taken to roll it out across a large number of computers
> along with patches, updates, settings. New or updated Support Contracts or
> in-house IT Staff training.
>
>
> Of course OpenSource can usually mitigate against the re-training costs by
> allowing products to be installed alongside existing& competing ones allowing
> migration in a series of steps
> 1. Old system is kept as default so people can play with the newer one and
> slowly get used to it. Training for a percentage of staff in rotation.
> Roll-out can be done over a period of time. Compatibility checks.
>
> 2. Newer system is made default but older one is still available, just more
> difficult to get at. Follow-up training. Again this switch can be staggered
> across the organisation rather than all-at-once.
>
> 3. Older system stops being installed on newer or refurbished machines.
>
> Costs will be higher, particularly in the 1st stage which can push people into
> rushing it which ramps the costs up even more. Imo the 2nd stage is the one
> worth giving the most time to. The first stage needs a fair fraction of that
> time just to make sure things will work and that there are enough trained
>people
> to help colleagues if there is trouble but it's only at the 2nd stage where
> people will really take it seriously or even notice it at all.
>
>
> Elected governments are seldom interested in longer term results. They need
> fast results in order to get re-elected. It's tricky to get a longer-term
view
> without compromising important values. The Uk attempts it reasonably well but
> it's far from perfect. Anyway the only relevance that sort of thinking has is
> on how to set-up our own BoD and i think that's better discussed on a
different
> list.
>
>
> Regards from
> Tom
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: planas<jslozier@gmail.com>
> To: users@global.libreoffice.org
> Sent: Sat, 6 August, 2011 4:25:14
> Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] There goes Open-Source in the White House
>
>
>>
>>> our government is looking for big budget cuts. One would be replace all the
>> MS stuff with open source software.
>>
>>
>> If the united states government, or the government of the united kingdom
>> ruled today that effective 1 January 2012, only FLOSS may be used by the
>> government, and closed source, proprietary software was banned, the
>> budget savings would, at the earliest, be visible in 2016, and probably
>> not until 2020, or even 2025. This is simply due to the unbreakable
>> contracts various software vendors have with those governments.
>> Contracts that requires the vendors to be paid, regardless of whether or
>> not the product meets the contract specifications, assuming it is
>> delivered in the first place.
>>
>> Long term, FLOSS saves money. Short term, it doesn't save money, and can
>> be described as costing money.
>>
>> jonathon
>> -- If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting.
>>
>> If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth
>> requesting.
>>
>> DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw.
>>
> Actually changing to another application/OS, etc will require a learning
> curve at the beginning. The advantage that FOSS has is the primary cost
> to using is the learning curve in most cases. I think often the actual
> costs of switching forget if I switched from LO to KOffice I have a
> learning curve, I do not know KOffice so I need to learn its quirks to
> become proficient. If a purchase is involved it just adds to the cost.
>
> Jay Lozier
> jslozier@gmail.com
I started this thread saying that with a guy at the helm that was a MS high
executive and he would not be the one who would nudge the people under him
towards using non-MS packages.

Yes, switching from MS Office to LibreOffice will cost time in man hours to
learn how to use it instead of MSO. Yes, there will be costs to "export" all of
MSO complex formatted files to version that are 100% readable by non-MS
packages. Yes there are a lot of different costs in switching even if the
software is free.

I agree that having the original software and the new open-source one sitting
side by side on the same machine may help. Having all new or refurbished
machines include "only" open-source versions could help.

The big issue is to always spend the time and effort to train people in the use
of these new options. I did not switch to OOo/LO from MSO over night. As I
learned to use open-source versions, over paid ones, I slowly stopped using
packages like MSO in favor of the open-source replacements. The final "blow" to
MSO was when I decided to use Ubuntu as my default desktop OS.

In the end, if we want our local, regional, or country governments, to use open
source we need to voice our support for it. The more people who tell our
governments that we want to see them use open-source packages, the more likely
that they will hear what we are saying and see if it can be done. If our
elected officials do not do what we want them to do, we elect others we think
will.

As stated before, the issue of long term contracts for MSO and other packages
can be a problem. But if and when those contracts are up for renewal, we need
to tell our governments to not renew them. If they are not, over time all of
these contracts will go away and then there will be none in the way of using
open-source alternatives.

-- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

I have been told that the MS has been feasting on the US Government for
many years. Basically the US Government has standardized on MS where
ever possible.

[soumalya_ray]

not only US govt;even indian govt organisations forces users to use MS
product.though obviously US is a much bigger cat.
for example,during my post-graduate entrance exam form filling up,the site (
www.aiimsexams.org) told me that only IE is allowed,nothing else.
so i used the useragent changer add-on in firefox and completed the
form!!!
my question is simple-when firefox able to fill up the form with the
add-on,why are they forcing us to use IE???i mailed them but nobody
replied.