City of Vancouver Adopts Open Standards 132
rbrander writes "Vancouver, Canada's third-largest city, has adopted a policy of 'open standards, interfaces and formats' for all public data. They will also consider open-source software on an even footing with proprietary for all new software purchases. Fifteen of the fifteen people who signed up to speak to city council on the topic spoke in favor. Their only criticism was, 'can't you do more?' with one advocating that free and open source software be given preference, not equal footing."
Re:One good point about the Economical Crisis. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not so much thinking outside the box, as not forgetting what you put in it.
When you can't open documents from a decade and a half ago, because they were stored in some incompatible proprietary format, you can't help but get a bad taste in your mouth for the company that caused it.
Now if you can complete your required task by using free software instead, and you have a guarantee that format will always be supported... well, make the logical jump.
Even if it isn't always supported, you can save the sourcecode, and decades from now you just get some enterprising novice coder to create a plugin to load it, for some money and experience. ;)
It would be nice... (Score:5, Insightful)
No prefered treatment! (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving OSS preferred treatment means that it doesn't win because it's better but just because it got an "unfair" advantage. You'll end up with the same prejudice that many "affirmative action" projects face, claiming that they only got this or that position because of that "unfair" advantage, not on their own merit.
I'm convinced that OSS can "win" on its own. And nobody will be able to claim that the sole reason was preference.
Rational behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
They will also consider open-source software on an even footing with proprietary for all new software purchases. [...] Their only criticism was, 'can't you do more?' with one advocating that free and open source software be given preference, not equal footing."
Indeed, it seems irrational that open source software isn't always considered on an even footing, not just in Vancouver but everywhere. Do governments assume that there is some inherent advantage to the source code being kept secret and copyrighted—security through obscurity, perhaps?
And it seems at least as irrational that open source isn't already given preferential treatment on account of its price, which is generally zero. You always hear about governments automatically going with the lowest bidder, even to their own detriment. Yet, when it comes to software, it almost goes without saying that they shell out money for Windows and Office.
Only Criticism... (Score:5, Insightful)
FOSS shouldn't be given preference. It should be considered using the same criteria as proprietary software: functionality, cost, security, sourcing, etc. Considering that FOSS is generally less expensive than proprietary software, it's already got an advantage that proprietary software will have difficulty overcoming.
Re:Only Criticism... (Score:5, Insightful)
Prejudice for freedom is entirely appropriate. (Score:5, Insightful)
A citizen's desire to ensure their freedom is entirely appropriate. With software the only way to do that is to exclusively use free software and open standards. Proprietors aren't stupid; sometimes they write powerful software. But no matter what that software does it is always non-free. Powerful proprietary software has a master, an individual or organization that controls its destiny and thus what the user can do and how the user can do that job. People accustomed to the idea that programs should be decided on certain vaguely-stated values ("their own merit") and not a user's freedom—the freedoms of free software—need to reevaluate their views in light of what public service means. Governments should not be under the thumb of proprietors, no matter how powerful their software. We are better off improving free software to make up for any technical limitations it has so that it can do what citizens need it to do; thus less powerful free software is preferable to more powerful proprietary software.
Re:Rational behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more that governments are slow to react to changes, and it is only in the last 5-10 years that open source software has entered the public consciousness /at all/.
There are a lot of interest groups that want to make it sound like nothing of value is ever free.
Re:Vancouver is Awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
The UK did the "equal consideration" thing years ago (I think around 2002/3). A few years later, I was still seeing government contracts being awarded based on statements like (actual quote) "Your tender was perfect, except for one word we wanted to hear: Microsoft".
Equal consideration isn't enough; it's a weasel word to appease people who care, while continuing with the status quo. Government buyers take risks only when forced to do so be legal requirements.
Re:One good point about the Economical Crisis. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a solution for accessing any legacy soft and hard format, given sufficient resources.
Reverse engineering a binary format from a decade and a half ago is harder than converting old source code into new source code.
One requires a skilled individual, or maybe even team. The other requires a less skilled individual. Converting between programming languages isn't exactly rocket science. (it isn't assembly, either)
The enterprising novice only has to understand the source, and then re-implement it as a plugin in his favourite language.
(Contemplate what happens when current source code formats become incompatible...)
Do you really think C will be gone in a couple decades? ;)
Those of us that love it do not. Those of us that do not love it, also do not. C is very resilient.
Re:Rational behavior (Score:3, Insightful)
TCO includes not having to retrain noobs from the street or the IT/HR department on the newfangled interface which has slightly different looking UI elements. Remember that employees and intended users may have knowledge ranging from wanting to load paper into the LCD through to what we know here. At present, part of IT's costs are hidden by the practice of power users (anyone under 30) in local offices performing (passable) first tier helpdesk functions for most of their common end-user applications (Windows, Office, web browser, printing). With any new system (MS upgrade or Linux), there's a relearning cost, which shows up as $ on someone's budget. In a typical bureaucracy or large organisation, IT (as with all other departments) would naturally prefer for someone else to bear that cost.
Learning a slightly different interface should be the same level of difficulty, given comparable new interfaces, regardless of the brand of the new interface but it isn't. There is a psychological factor, which some programmers are too quick to discount, arising from the reputation of the previous product. MS whatever may crash/break all the time, but at least the user already knows the ways in which it breaks and how to avoid those situations. There's less reliability about known faults for a new product from the same vendor, than for a new product from a new vendor which may contain a whole new set of faults to learn.
Re:One good point about the Economical Crisis. (Score:5, Insightful)
ummm...no. They can get a version of the distro it was built on and install it on that computer in the museum. That's the strength of open source. Every version back to the beginning is, and will be, available somewhere. Given the DRM contained in most closed source programs, good luck finding an activation server around that will allow the program to run.
somebody has been looking at maps??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Did the author just stumble on it or did someone tell him/her to identify which Vancouver?
Vancouver Washington and Vancouver BC are close (sort of) but are not alike.
Kind of makes a difference.
The compiler problem (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why the C compiler is required to be able to compile itself to a new target platform. If you're especially paranoid, you store a reference platform with the OS, compiler and compiler source as well as your escrow source. Then no matter how alien computers become, your code and hence your data can survive.
This problem was solved in the 1960's.
It's also why if it doesn't include a compiler and source that can compile both itself and the OS it's not an operating system - it's an operating environment.
Re:No prefered treatment! (Score:5, Insightful)
In some situations, being Open Source is a merit in itself.
Giving preference to Open Source is one way to let that merit influence your decision.
Exactly how much preference Open Source will have (and should have) is open to debate. Is it "all else equals", or is it "unless there's a strong compelling reason not to", or somewhere between?
Re:FOSS should not get preference (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No prefered treatment! (Score:5, Insightful)
Merit is irrelevant. Microsoft has never won on merit alone. They bought their position wilfully and skilfully. That is hardly the issue. It would still be a problem if WordPerfect still ruled the word processor world and Lotus 123 the spreadsheet world. The issue is vendor lock-in.
If file formats are all the same AND COMPATIBLE, then the competing apps vendors will inherently have to compete on merit. You will get your wish. But until such a time that Microsoft stops playing games with their intentional monkey-wrench implementation of ODF, it would be best if everyone moved over to an implementation that DOES use an acceptable and compatible implementation of ODF. Once that happen, then if Microsoft were to try to play in that arena, they would have a harder time playing their old games. Not that they wouldn't try, but the very first time a government document was made available to the public and the applications that people use (something other than Microsoft Office) coughs and says it can't read it, then Microsoft will have to answer to the problem they created. If there is law that says "this government body will use only open and compatible formats" and Microsoft fails, then Microsoft either needs to provide a fix or a refund at that point.
But BEFORE that level and fair playing field can be established, a "standard" needs to be in place first... an open standard. Microsoft has already demonstrated bad faith with their first implementation that will READ all ODF documents just fine... but won't save them in a way that other software can read them. (That is exactly how their lock-in game works.)
Re:VMs (Score:5, Insightful)
A lot of your complaints would be solved by saving the rendering software in binary form which runs under an open-source virtual machine like VirtualBox.
This doesn't solve the problem of an activation server for the OS. You boot into your VM and it can't activate because the server is non-existent. Any problem you have with open source software is magnified 10X with closed source.
This news is a little dated... (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh yes, "open standards" (Score:2, Insightful)
So Vancouver is "adopting open standards for that data and considering open source software when replacing existing applications."
Open standards, and one presumes primarily for reports, spreadsheets, etc. As for example ECMA-376 Office Open XML File Formats (2nd edition) aka ISO/IEC 29500?
(If you're a bit lost, just think filename extensions with "x" on the end: "docx", "xlsx", ....)
Let's consider open source software for the purpose. Well, plenty of it supports this "Open" standard. But somehow it's not quite the same as good old familiar MS Office, which comes in such prettily and reassuringly shrinkwrapped boxes.
Plus ça change.....
Microsoft have not yet begun to fight this one. (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Vancouver resident (well suburb, but maybe my municipality will follow the big boys) I applaud this step.
However be advised the Microsoft has a significant development facility here, and they have yet to be heard from.
Alderman can pass motions, but we havent seen anything real yet.
Re:somebody has been looking at maps??? (Score:3, Insightful)
Only thinking about towns in your own country is silly. I know I specify "London, Ontario" when I mean the London there, but plainly "London" when I'm talking about the one in the UK.