[ILUG] opensource too costly for Irish gov
dermot at dspsrv.com
Fri Apr 30 12:34:31 IST 2004
On Fri, 30 Apr 2004 10:17:22 +0100, <P at draigBrady.com> wrote:
> Minister Hanafin indicated that Ireland's e-government system, once
> fully constructed, needs to last for several >decades and must therefore
> be upgradeable. "Using open standards gives us that option."
Bit of a non sequitur. If they are upgrading, what are they
upgrading to? A different standard? Or an updated revision
on an existing standard. I would contend that a linux based
system would in many respects, be easier to periodically
> She added that the government had looked into the long-term cost of
> various architectures and had determined >that using only open source
> software could, in the long run, be more expensive. "The long-term cost
> of open >source may outweigh the short term savings," she said.
This is a very central point, isn't it? And continues and
continues to amaze me.
Again, I would contend that the admin costs for open source
versus non open source would be fairly comparable. But I
don't have hard figures to back that up. I suspect neither
> Companies like IBM and Microsoft -- huge advocates for strong
> intellectual property law and by extention >proprietary software -- are
> supporters of open standards, particularly Web Services architectures.
> The pair, >along with BEA Systems and Verisign, even founded the Web
> Services Interoperability Organization (WS-I), which >promotes the
They is something to be said for working with big established
companies. But am I the only one who thinks that web services
are being touted as some kind of panacea. I think the reality
is that web services will be pretty much just as difficult to
develop and roll out as more traditional networked applications.
Never mind that the web services implementations for linux are
shaping up to be excellent.
> The open source software movement, meanwhile, is not focused on pushing
> common technical standards, although >many in the movement support such
> initiatives. Open source backers aim to create a market where software
> code is >open to development and modification, which can in some
> instances undermine interoperability.
That is a lie. The open source movement is all about standards.
And interoperability. And achieves great things, despite not
being properly funded. Some open source software can at times
seem less polished but that is about development time. Given
time, the projects usually exceed their counterparts in terms
of stability and functionality.
It's like the Spyglass/Netscape vs IE war. When the Spyglass
lead developer found out one day that MS had 1300 people
working on IE, he knew it was all over. But nothing much seems
to be happening with IE now.
This ISA conference was sponsored by Microsoft. That said, I
wonder if the cautious Irish government might not be taking
a somewhat sensible approach here.
I don't believe it's about long-term TCO. I think the issue
is about what's easiest for the government. Building up a
linux competent organisation and managing these implementations
probably seems to them like it would be a nightmare.
Are there any big systems implementors with linux experience?
Like Cara or BearingPoint or whatever. That could put linux
bids/proposals in for these types of projects and follow
through on them.
More information about the ILUG