3 ms·

> Hence it also increases the cost for the taxpayers Isn't that just a short-term problem? Mid to long term, it should decrease costs dramatically.

layer8 5y ago
How so? Because of external contributors? Most software developed for the public sector is quite use-case specific (and the use-cases are often quite boring), so I don’t see that happening for most projects.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Over time the use-cases will grow, and if done right you'll start being able to "borrow" from similar use-cases in other areas/governments. It WOULD likely require massive retooling as much "government code" is more like "black box machine that does X" than "fancy new web-app".
  - layer8 5y ago
    In my experience, that doesn’t happen much even between projects within a single software company, because requirements are too diverse and change too frequently. Pushing for synergies also tends to create all sorts of internal political dynamics. At best it’s a long shot, with high risk of not amortizing the cost. The rest of the world, including the open-source world, also isn’t a promising role model, with the constant churn, fragmentation and evolution of languages, frameworks, libraries and tooling.
    - bombcar 5y ago
      Yeah, I suspect most people are thinking "government code" is like Chrome or something, whereas most government code; most business code, hell, most code in the world is random business logic/glue code which often doesn't have much portability or usefulness.
- SparkyMcUnicorn 5y ago
  Once a workflow is adopted, it becomes normal and the hassles start to go away. That 3rd party library with an incompatible license now has a good alternative, code re-use is higher, handing off to new developers is easier, and identifying development teams that are highly inefficient (or incompetent) becomes possible. I feel like there's too many benefits to even list. Having seen some of the proprietary code developed for 3 letter agencies, it's shocking how bad some of it is (and there's even projects that have better open source alternatives that solve every use-case) and adding transparency can only be a good thing... in my opinion.
- unnah 4y ago
  Consider maintenance costs over the following decades. If the software is owned by the vendor, they can ask the highest price they can get away with, and the customer (government in this case) has no option but to pay it. Of course they also have the option of stopping maintenance, or switching to another solution, but those are very expensive alternatives. However, if the software is open source, or alternatively owned by the government, than they can ask for competitive bids for maintenance. The vendor can no longer ask huge sums for basic maintenance. The projected savings can even justify significantly higher costs at the development stage.

layer8 5y ago

How so? Because of external contributors? Most software developed for the public sector is quite use-case specific (and the use-cases are often quite boring), so I don’t see that happening for most projects.

bombcar 5y ago
Over time the use-cases will grow, and if done right you'll start being able to "borrow" from similar use-cases in other areas/governments. It WOULD likely require massive retooling as much "government code" is more like "black box machine that does X" than "fancy new web-app".
- layer8 5y ago
  In my experience, that doesn’t happen much even between projects within a single software company, because requirements are too diverse and change too frequently. Pushing for synergies also tends to create all sorts of internal political dynamics. At best it’s a long shot, with high risk of not amortizing the cost. The rest of the world, including the open-source world, also isn’t a promising role model, with the constant churn, fragmentation and evolution of languages, frameworks, libraries and tooling.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Yeah, I suspect most people are thinking "government code" is like Chrome or something, whereas most government code; most business code, hell, most code in the world is random business logic/glue code which often doesn't have much portability or usefulness.
SparkyMcUnicorn 5y ago
Once a workflow is adopted, it becomes normal and the hassles start to go away. That 3rd party library with an incompatible license now has a good alternative, code re-use is higher, handing off to new developers is easier, and identifying development teams that are highly inefficient (or incompetent) becomes possible. I feel like there's too many benefits to even list. Having seen some of the proprietary code developed for 3 letter agencies, it's shocking how bad some of it is (and there's even projects that have better open source alternatives that solve every use-case) and adding transparency can only be a good thing... in my opinion.
unnah 4y ago
Consider maintenance costs over the following decades. If the software is owned by the vendor, they can ask the highest price they can get away with, and the customer (government in this case) has no option but to pay it. Of course they also have the option of stopping maintenance, or switching to another solution, but those are very expensive alternatives. However, if the software is open source, or alternatively owned by the government, than they can ask for competitive bids for maintenance. The vendor can no longer ask huge sums for basic maintenance. The projected savings can even justify significantly higher costs at the development stage.