Democrats ahead of Republicans on Open Source?

Linux Journal ^ | November 06, 2003 | Doc Searls

[antiRepublicrat]

Is there any significance to what Web server/platform combinations 2004 presidential candidates are using?

As we swing into the thick of the 2004 electoral playoffs, it's interesting to see what kinds of platforms are running under the candidates' official campaign Web sites. Netcraft has a handy feature called "What's that site running?" that lets us see combinations of Web servers and OS platforms. So here's a quick rundown, in alphabetical order:

• George W. Bush: Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000

• Wesley Clark: Apache on Linux

• Howard Dean: Apache on FreeBSD

• John Edwards: Microsoft IIS "behind a computer running NetWare"

• Richard Gephardt: Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000

• John Kerry: Apache on Linux

• Dennis Kucinich Apache on Linux

• Carol Mosely-Braun: Apache on FreeBSD

• Al Sharpton: Apache on Solaris 8

• Joe Lieberman: Apache on FreeBSD

For what it's worth, the Republican National Committee is running Microsoft IIS on Windows 2000, while the Democratic National Committee is running Apache on Linux.

As of this writing, November 5, 2003, the RNC has an uptime of 4.26 days (maximum of 39.04) and a 90-day moving average of 16.91. The DNC has an uptime of 445.02 days (also the maximum) and a 90-day moving average of 395.38 days.

Draw your own conclusions.

[TheEngineer]

In the Munich case, they used their position as a rich company with deep pockets to offer what was possibly a contract at a loss just to keep competition out. This is what the big trucking companies used to do to independent truckers to drive them out of business. That's wrong.

So when open source software companies give software away for free, it's legitimate business... but when Microsoft gives it's software away, it's wrong? You see where I'm going with this?

[antiRepublicrat]

But the solution isn't to legislate a preference for open source software. That's no better than the very thing you're complaining about.

From what I got about a posted article, the idea they have of saying "You must prefer Open Source over anything else" is pretty stupid. I just want the government to go for the best price/performance ratio, and I rarely see them do that when it comes to software. They are so Microsoft-centric it's unbelievable. I've asked before why we were buying a $1,000 Windows license for a static Web or file server (as opposed to free) and just got dull stares in return.

[TheEngineer]

Closed-source companies are often corporations. Open-source software isn't a corporation. You could go as a private individual and download and use SE Linux, getting a direct benefit from your tax dollars. Or that money could go to a company with a big lobby and a private jet for the CEO. If the same amount of money is going to be spent, I know which way I'd want it to be spent.

There are plenty of open source companies that have private jets and big lobbies. The article that Bush2000 pointed out to you mentioned IBM as a proponent of mandating open source software. Therein lies the problem -- When the govt mandates (or develops) GPL / open source software, it's interfering in the commercial software business. It's taking the side of one group of corporations over another group.

[antiRepublicrat]

So when open source software companies give software away for free, it's legitimate business... but when Microsoft gives it's software away, it's wrong? You see where I'm going with this?

Actually, OSS companies don't have the legal right to charge for their software. But as to where you're going, Microsoft is scared exactly for that reason -- it's hard to compete with free. That is why they are willing do go through such lengths to squash Linux ASAP, including government lobbying and large gifts ("the first hit's always free"). They know they can't keep up the loss leader for too long in order to keep up their market position. Maybe Richard Stallman was right that in the future all software will be free.

[TheEngineer]

I've asked before why we were buying a $1,000 Windows license for a static Web or file server (as opposed to free) and just got dull stares in return.

I agree with you that these types of spending decisions should be thought through completely. All options should be carefully considered, and no supplier should be given a rubber stamp approval every time.

[antiRepublicrat]

There are plenty of open source companies that have private jets and big lobbies.

Which you pay for through services, not software licensing. With free software, we've just cut out a good chunk of the pork.

Therein lies the problem -- When the govt mandates (or develops) GPL / open source software, it's interfering in the commercial software business. It's taking the side of one group of corporations over another group.

IBM still has a very large proprietary software base. They were just smart enough to realize the potential for both profit and diversity of business model in OSS. Any company can do it.

[TheEngineer]

But as to where you're going,...

I think you missed my point. My point was that it seems rather hypocritical to say that it's "wrong" for Microsoft to give away its software, but that it's perfectly OK for open source companies to give away their software.

[antiRepublicrat]

All options should be carefully considered, and no supplier should be given a rubber stamp approval every time.

Agreed, neither proprietary nor Open Source (and to go on a tangent, neither minority-owned nor white-owned, etc.). However, I do believe that under objective circumstances, OSS and other free software models will win the majority of the time. It could be that is a fact, and that fact makes any fair competition bill look like an OSS-proponency bill because it will naturally advance OSS due to its generally better price/performance ratio.

[antiRepublicrat]

My point was that it seems rather hypocritical to say that it's "wrong" for Microsoft to give away its software, but that it's perfectly OK for open source companies to give away their software.

Not just their software, but essentially their services, too. They undercut a free software bid by millions of dollars after their discounts.

[TheEngineer]

Which you pay for through services, not software licensing. With free software, we've just cut out a good chunk of the pork.

There's no free lunch there. The software licensing costs are cut, but the administration/setup fees increase.

They [IBM] were just smart enough to realize the potential for both profit and diversity of business model in OSS.

IBM lobbying California to mandate open source software makes me laugh. I can only imagine IBM's reaction to the hypothetical situation where California requires all mainframe hardware purchases be from "open hardware" companies.

[antiRepublicrat]

The software licensing costs are cut, but the administration/setup fees increase.

Not in my experience for the latter. Just look at the uptimes in the article for the RNC/DNC sites. Who do you think has to pay more attention administering his box? In another environment, how is it that Largo, Florida, has 800 users on 400 seats being run by 10 admittedly underworked admins? I've never seen a Windows environment that thin on admins.

[TheEngineer]

OSS and other free software models will win the majority of the time. It could be that is a fact, and that fact makes any fair competition bill look like an OSS-proponency bill because it will naturally advance OSS due to its generally better price/performance ratio.

If you wrote the bill, I have no doubt that it would look like a OSS-proponency bill.

[TheEngineer]

Just look at the uptimes in the article for the RNC/DNC sites. Who do you think has to pay more attention administering his box? In another environment, how is it that Largo, Florida, has 800 users on 400 seats being run by 10 admittedly underworked admins?

I know enough to know that no one can fully analyze these situations based on that pittance of info.

[TheEngineer]

Not just their software, but essentially their services, too. They undercut a free software bid by millions of dollars after their discounts.

... And they didn't win the contract. (Munich).

The low-bidder (an American company - Microsoft) gets shafted by Munich, despite the fact that it was the low bidder. And American open source proponents cheer.

And you guys wonder why I don't want to be associated with you.

[antiRepublicrat]

The low-bidder (an American company - Microsoft) gets shafted by Munich, despite the fact that it was the low bidder.

Their bid was much higher initially, but when it looked like they wouldn't win, they dipped into their "Linux can't win" fund to undercut the other bid. You know they took a possibly illegal loss leader if they could undercut the price of free software.

There were a few reasons Microsoft lost, none dealing with bid price. First, Munich contracted-out a technological merit assessment to a third party and Linux came out clearly on top. Second, even though Microsoft extended the "software assurance" period to sweeten the pot, Munich was afraid of the consequences when their renew period approached -- would they be forced to upgrade software they didn't need to just to save money eventually? Third, as Microsoft got closer to losing the contract their actions really started pissing off the people in Munich. Their attitude, as it was in Florida, was that the city was expected to justify to Microsoft why Microsoft products shouldn't be bought. That's BS.

And American open source proponents cheer.

Cheer that a convicted monopolist is finally losing its monopoly power despite leveraging it to win deals. Competition is good.

[antiRepublicrat]

I know enough to know that no one can fully analyze these situations based on that pittance of info.

Research it, Largo, Florida. A year later the Microsoft reps came back again to try to get this black mark off of Microsoft's record. In the end they had to admit they could not produce an equivalent Microsoft-based solution at the price requested. I guess they didn't want to dip that far into their anti-Linux slush fund, or that maybe the current monopoly investigation kept them from doing so.

[antiRepublicrat]

If you wrote the bill, I have no doubt that it would look like a OSS-proponency bill.

No matter who wrote it, it would appear so to you. Mine would simply say that the government must buy the lowest-cost software available that fits objectively written criteria for the task at hand. Then I would have RFPs and purchase orders reviewed for being targeted, and reject them if they were.

That goes both ways. If someone were targeting an RFP towards a Linux system and somehow the Microsoft bid came in lower (without using their slush fund), then Microsoft would have to get the contract.

[Bush2000]

That was an issue you created. I was talking computers in general, but you wanted to narrow it down when you realized that a PC can't compete with a Mac in the high-end on any level.

Look at #49. You were talking about high-end PCs and acting as if price/features applied generally across the board.

You had to find some retreat where the Mac doesn't go -- the low-end -- so you could keep up your self-delusion that the PC is all-great in all areas

The so-called "low-end" is where the vast majority of computers are sold. If you want to hold your nose when talking about the vast majority of computers, fine. Go ahead: It's the reason why the Mac is an also-ran.

[Bush2000]

The specific case I'm talking about was the NSA doing some computer research by hardening Linux. MS used its lobbying to stop that.

Competition is now called "lobbying"?!? Nice. I see you're familiar with Marxist principles of redefining reality.

how can I justify spending millions of dollars on licenses and support when I can get the whole thing for just the cost of the support? To go proprietary would be a waste of our tax dollars.

OSS is going to cost more for support. Likewise, there are additional training costs. There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter how many times you guys try to pull that cr*p.

[Bush2000]

In the Munich case, they used their position as a rich company with deep pockets to offer what was possibly a contract at a loss just to keep competition out.

That's hilarious. Evidently, you're not familiar with IBM's (one of your unsung corporate OSS heroes, by the way) tactics in bidding on contracts...