Interesting to see that Chris Sells was
testifying against
the “Open Source Software for Oregon Act (HB
2892)” in Salem on
Thursday.
Not surprisingly, the
response on the
blogs
I read has been are
pro-Chris Sells and anti HB 2892. I have my own take on this, but it the
interest of full disclosure:
- I am an Architecture Evangelist for Microsoft, which officially
makes me an extremely technical salesman.
- I work for Microsoft’s Industry Solutions
Group, which focuses on
vertical markets including
Government.
- I cover the Pacific Northwest, so the Oregon State Government is one
of my customers.
- I was in Salem on Thursday, speaking to a state agency that would be
required to “provide justification whenever a proprietary software
product is acquired rather than open source software” if HB 2892
passes.
- Employees of said Oregon State agency asked me my opinion of HB 2892.
I’ll post here what I told them: I am completely willing take the
Microsoft Platform (Windows + Office + Enterprise Servers + Visual
Studio) and do an apples-to-apples head-to-head comparison with any
other technology in the industry. The Microsoft platform is easier,
faster and cheaper than anything else out there. I say “cheaper” knowing
full well that there OSS alternatives that have no cost to acquire. Note
that I didn’t say “free”. “Free” software costs money to run. Hardware
isn’t free. IT Operations staff aren’t free. Developers aren’t free.
Information workers aren’t free. Vendor support isn’t free. Consulting
services aren’t free. Migrating isn’t free. Add up all those non-free
pieces, and the cost of the initial software purchase is lost in the
noise.
The problem with HB 2892 is not that in encourages agencies to look at
Open Source Software. There’s no need for a law to do that – every state
agency I speak to has budget problems. As millions are slashed from
budgets, government IT departments need no additional encouragement to
investigate alternatives that might save them money. The problem with HB
2892 is the “justify” statement. That’s not about fair head-to-head
comparison. It’s about trying to force agencies to pick OSS products
that they don’t want by subjecting them to a painful and costly
“justification” process. (Note, I am not implying that agencies never
want to pick OSS products. I’m just pointing out what happens if they
want something other than OSS.) If agencies are choosing commercial
software instead of OSS, even though it must cost more, they must see
more value in the commercial software. Where’s the value in legislating
that agencies must settle on a lesser product?
Don
points out “we’re all lucky there’s a Chris Sells”. I agree completely
(and I’ll add on how lucky we are there’s a Mike
Sax who asked Chris
to go in the first place).