Linux in Government: In Spite of Endorsements, Government Linux Projects Still Treading Water
On Thursday, October 28, the press was abuzz with news of the United Kingdom's formal publication of its reports from the Whitehall buying arm of the Office of Government Commerce's (OGC) Linux pilots. The OGC Linux Pilots began last year and were done across multiple government sectors. The agency's conclusion says Linux is ready for government deployment.
In September 2003, OGC announced it would be coordinating proof of concept trials of open-source software (OSS) in a range of public bodies in conjunction with IBM. In December 2003, the OGC announced that the scope would be extended to include the involvement of Sun Microsystems. Skeptics said they doubted the UK would accept Linux, and recent leaks indicated Linux would fail.
OGC stated, "This report summarises the key findings from the Pilots and, to supplement the reports from the trials, also takes into account information obtained from other public sector activity in OSS planning and deployment in the UK and elsewhere in Europe." It went on to say:
The software industry is very fast moving, and frequently throws up new developments that initially promise to make great changes in the marketplace, but which ultimately fail to live up to their initial press hype. OSS is indeed the start of a fundamental change in the software infrastructure marketplace, but it is not a hype bubble that will burst and UK Government must take cognizance of that fact.
Later in the report, the United Kingdom explains why it decided to do its own study independent of the European Commission's initiative "eEurope an Action Plan", dated June 2000. Simply put, things have changed since 2000.
The key decisions of the OGC policy are as follows:
UK Government will consider OSS solutions alongside proprietary ones in IT procurements. Contracts will be awarded on a value for money basis.
UK Government will use only products for interoperability that support open standards and specifications in all future IT developments.
UK Government will seek to avoid lock-in to proprietary IT products and services.
UK Government will consider obtaining full rights to bespoke software code or customisations of COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) software it procures wherever this achieves best value for money.
UK Government will explore further the possibilities of using OSS as the default exploitation route for Government funded R&D software.
Although these policy recommendations appear encouraging for the Open Source community, they offer no new insights. Case studies in the United States have indicated that government bodies have been reaching these conclusions for years. For example, in a recent article, "California Air Resources Board's Secrets Revealed", CIO Bill Welty discussed that agency's use of open-source software beginning in 1994. In that agency's report alone, any government body could find enough evidence to justify adopting Linux and open-source technologies.
In a paper called "Roundup of Selected OSS Legislative Activity WorldWide", the Open Source and Industry Alliance tracks global OSS legislative activity. In the past two years, Alabama, California, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Virginia have initiated legislation to implement policies similar to the United Kingdom's, with similar ambitions in mind. Rhode Island, Utah and Pennsylvania also have joined the Government Open Code Collaborative to effect similar policies.
In Europe, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Slovenia and Switzerland have seen similar initiatives. In other parts of the world, Brazil, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, China, South Korea, Israel, Afghanistan, India, Malaysia, Nigeria and South Africa all have started Linux and open-source government activities.
Although we have tracked many case studies, wide-spread adoption of OSS within government lacks execution. For example, only a few years ago, Mexico agreed to implement Linux in all its public schools. Vicente Fox introduced an initiative called e-Mexico shortly after he took over the presidency in December of 2000. Funding was scarce and the government began to look at ways to finance the project without using hard currency. Initially, several vendors recommended Linux technologies for the project. Miguel de Icaza, along with Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Sun Microsystems and others, attended the first roundtable discussions in Mexico. According to an InfoWorld article, Miguel seemed quite surprised at the support he received. The article quotes him as saying, "I thought I was going to be the only person for Linux. But HP surprised me, IBM surprised me and Sun surprised me."
Soon after this initial roundtable discussion, the Linux project in Mexico began taking shape. But despite Fox's statement that open-source technologies would be the most cost efficient, he met with Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates and the effort died. Microsoft pledged $60 million in software and training. They allotted $10 million to train workers in small- and mid-sized businesses. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation made an additional commitment to fund Mexico's program to move the country's libraries on-line. "Bill Gates flew down to Mexico, and they announced a donation of $30 million dollars and Linux was dropped", Miguel de Icaza was quoted.
Practical Task Scheduling Deployment
July 20, 2016 12:00 pm CDT
One of the best things about the UNIX environment (aside from being stable and efficient) is the vast array of software tools available to help you do your job. Traditionally, a UNIX tool does only one thing, but does that one thing very well. For example, grep is very easy to use and can search vast amounts of data quickly. The find tool can find a particular file or files based on all kinds of criteria. It's pretty easy to string these tools together to build even more powerful tools, such as a tool that finds all of the .log files in the /home directory and searches each one for a particular entry. This erector-set mentality allows UNIX system administrators to seem to always have the right tool for the job.
Cron traditionally has been considered another such a tool for job scheduling, but is it enough? This webinar considers that very question. The first part builds on a previous Geek Guide, Beyond Cron, and briefly describes how to know when it might be time to consider upgrading your job scheduling infrastructure. The second part presents an actual planning and implementation framework.
Join Linux Journal's Mike Diehl and Pat Cameron of Help Systems.
Free to Linux Journal readers.Register Now!
- Google's SwiftShader Released
- Interview with Patrick Volkerding
- Tech Tip: Really Simple HTTP Server with Python
- My +1 Sword of Productivity
- SUSE LLC's SUSE Manager
- Managing Linux Using Puppet
- Murat Yener and Onur Dundar's Expert Android Studio (Wrox)
- Non-Linux FOSS: Caffeine!
- SuperTuxKart 0.9.2 Released
- Returning Values from Bash Functions
With all the industry talk about the benefits of Linux on Power and all the performance advantages offered by its open architecture, you may be considering a move in that direction. If you are thinking about analytics, big data and cloud computing, you would be right to evaluate Power. The idea of using commodity x86 hardware and replacing it every three years is an outdated cost model. It doesn’t consider the total cost of ownership, and it doesn’t consider the advantage of real processing power, high-availability and multithreading like a demon.
This ebook takes a look at some of the practical applications of the Linux on Power platform and ways you might bring all the performance power of this open architecture to bear for your organization. There are no smoke and mirrors here—just hard, cold, empirical evidence provided by independent sources. I also consider some innovative ways Linux on Power will be used in the future.Get the Guide