4 ms·

> The major reason that proprietary software is so prominent in gov is corruption. I'd like to see more open source software in government, but the main reason

> The major reason that proprietary software is so prominent in gov is corruption. I'd like to see more open source software in government, but the main reason we select proprietary solutions where I work is support. If more open source tools had support staff, maintenance agreements, etc. more government organizations (and businesses) would consider them viable. I may be fairly code-literate IT, but I don't understand a given product as well as the support staff from the company that made it.

afarrell 6y ago
Code is a liability. Teams which can encapsulate complexity for others are an asset.
robocat 6y ago
> If more open source tools had support staff, maintenance agreements, etc Supply is surely not the issue, there is simply a lack of demand at a reasonable price. The usual billion dollar failed proprietary IT project could pay for an equivalent open source implementation with equivalent support. Most government simply doesn’t demand open source as a preference, and proprietary software suppliers overwhelmingly prefer to supply solutions that gift them vendor lock-in and monopoly rent extraction. Edit: large software corporates demand open source suppliers, or they bring open source talent in-house: government should follow their example. Large software corporates do it right (e.g. I met someone working on PostgreSQL but getting paid by Microsoft the other day). Disclaimer: I am a co-founder of small proprietary software company with some government clients.
majkinetor 6y ago
That's common complaint. However, in my experience, proprietary support, especially on supportive technologies isn't that great either. It also seems more likely to find local expert on FOSS technology given that barrier to entry is 0.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  The barrier to entry is far from zero. Understanding a platform enough to make code fixes takes a fair bit of study beyond the most trivial project. For businesses and government, support is often mandatory, and at the least, it gives administrators "people to blame" when something goes wrong. I feel open source with paid support is a very viable route for government, given it's general expectation of having paid support for the products it uses, but there's still an extreme minority of businesses successfully monetizing open source software.
verisimilidude 6y ago
"Support" is the excuse, but it turns out to be a bad excuse in practice. It's easy for government organizations to become small fish in a PaaS provider's big ocean of customers. Even major providers in this space, like Accela, tend to be horrible at providing actual support.
pabs3 6y ago
You can also hire local Linux enthusiasts to create an in-house support team. That keeps the money for the support costs within the local economy and potentially they could even give back to the open source projects and represent your local interests within the open source community.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  So I can tell my boss we should hire a six figure salary employee instead of buying a four or five figure annual proprietary product? Honestly, as a taxpayer, I'd hope not. And that's the problem, for more open source products, the available support is "pull requests welcome".
  - pabs3 6y ago
    Usually the costs for proprietary software in government are much larger, usually in the millions.
    - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
      This is a very bad assumption. You are ignoring the fact that government includes municipal, county, state, and federal levels of government, and entirely forgetting that most of the software governments use isn't custom-built through super expensive contracts. Many are purpose-built for government use but are sold to a large number of organizations at pretty ordinary pricing models.

afarrell 6y ago

Code is a liability. Teams which can encapsulate complexity for others are an asset.

robocat 6y ago

> If more open source tools had support staff, maintenance agreements, etc Supply is surely not the issue, there is simply a lack of demand at a reasonable price. The usual billion dollar failed proprietary IT project could pay for an equivalent open source implementation with equivalent support. Most government simply doesn’t demand open source as a preference, and proprietary software suppliers overwhelmingly prefer to supply solutions that gift them vendor lock-in and monopoly rent extraction. Edit: large software corporates demand open source suppliers, or they bring open source talent in-house: government should follow their example. Large software corporates do it right (e.g. I met someone working on PostgreSQL but getting paid by Microsoft the other day). Disclaimer: I am a co-founder of small proprietary software company with some government clients.

majkinetor 6y ago

That's common complaint. However, in my experience, proprietary support, especially on supportive technologies isn't that great either. It also seems more likely to find local expert on FOSS technology given that barrier to entry is 0.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
The barrier to entry is far from zero. Understanding a platform enough to make code fixes takes a fair bit of study beyond the most trivial project. For businesses and government, support is often mandatory, and at the least, it gives administrators "people to blame" when something goes wrong. I feel open source with paid support is a very viable route for government, given it's general expectation of having paid support for the products it uses, but there's still an extreme minority of businesses successfully monetizing open source software.

verisimilidude 6y ago

"Support" is the excuse, but it turns out to be a bad excuse in practice. It's easy for government organizations to become small fish in a PaaS provider's big ocean of customers. Even major providers in this space, like Accela, tend to be horrible at providing actual support.

pabs3 6y ago

You can also hire local Linux enthusiasts to create an in-house support team. That keeps the money for the support costs within the local economy and potentially they could even give back to the open source projects and represent your local interests within the open source community.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
So I can tell my boss we should hire a six figure salary employee instead of buying a four or five figure annual proprietary product? Honestly, as a taxpayer, I'd hope not. And that's the problem, for more open source products, the available support is "pull requests welcome".
- pabs3 6y ago
  Usually the costs for proprietary software in government are much larger, usually in the millions.
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    This is a very bad assumption. You are ignoring the fact that government includes municipal, county, state, and federal levels of government, and entirely forgetting that most of the software governments use isn't custom-built through super expensive contracts. Many are purpose-built for government use but are sold to a large number of organizations at pretty ordinary pricing models.