[marko]

We all know that most of our governments rely heavily on Microsoft for their operating systems, whilst some have led the way forward and migrated to free, Open Source solutions.

However, recent figures indicate that the UK government spends at least £640m (around 794m Euros or $1,003m) on it's antivirus software alone which absolutely boggles my mind when I think of the other software they may use which could cost considerably more than an adequate antivirus solution!!.

So, if we put the argument of switching to an Open Source operating system aside for one second which could prove to be a long drawn out affair for governments if they chose to go down that road, surely they can still make incredible savings by switching to Open Source software instead of commercial alternatives?.   Well, in regards to antivirus, I actually struggle to name one which is open source and would consider efficient enough to equal a freeware version.   Sure, we have the likes of ClamAV which is a respectable name in the OS arena, but beyond that could any of us comfortably move to a lesser known OS antivirus?.   So, could we possibly expect our governments who handle much more sensitive and potentially catastrophic data to make such a switch?.

Well, in short, I guess the answer has to be no to that one, but all said and done, I'm sure some mainstream antivirus provider such as avast wouldn't necessarily shun the prospect of providing some form of adequate protection to governments for a reasonable price - after all, we're talking millions of licenses here across a vast network of computers and if I were responsible for the budget and provisioning of software to our government I'd sure as hell be looking for an offer an antivirus vendor couldn't refuse.

Then we move onto other software such as office packages which I'm sure would account for a vast amount of the governments software budget, email clients, and so forth.   Depending on what they are using for their email server requirements, nothing more than a browser would be required for the majority of email users and surely OpenOffice or LibreOffice is a worthy replacement for the somewhat bloated MS Office?!.

I'm not sure of the implications, but spending many many millions of pounds each year on software has to be some incentive for the governments to even consider creating their own, in-house, development programs, where employing talented developers to write their own office software, antivirus and security software must be a viable alternative?.

I'm confident that between a share of licenses attached to freeware and the use of Open Source software, any government could make substantial savings across their millions of computers but as is often the case, there will be some people or departments using particular addons or bespoke software that couldn't possibly think about migrating to an Open Source package which is where the problem arises, and audits are required, and having been involved in such a mammoth process myself before I know just how confusing and awkward things can quickly become which is presumably why it may not be quite as easy as we think for such large scale deployments to happen overnight - however, my vote goes for the introduction of their own in-house development department to create and maintain their own software, even if this is spawned from Open Source code to begin with!

[jayesstee]

A long time ago, there was a saying in IT circles:  "nobody got fired for specifying IBM!"

I guess the same could be said for MicroSoft today.

If only Governments had the guts to:

i)  Have really independant experts produce a list of "allowed"  freeware.

ii)  Allow any savings made by a Goverment office/department by using freeware to be kept by that organization.

Then there could be a slow, but safe move to alternatives to the software industry giants - like MS.

The extra competition might help every one!

[FutureShock]

Nice ideas jayesstee...

Governments would be far wiser to move to open source.  The only problem I could see might be implementation, where there may not be sufficient staff or programmers to make the changes happen, as you mentioned, marko, quickly enough.

I'd like to know how much the U.S. government, as an example, has invested in the development of open source projects.  I would be surprised if it were a large sum.  At any rate, that would be the place to start a switch.  Open source shouldn't mean that the programmers work for free...at least the primary ones, and, if there were more funding for the projects, there would be more money to help the programmers get by so that the project can develop faster.  Then there would be the payday for these programmers with implementation...at far less a cost than hiring Microsoft or another software giant.

I recall the recent list of entities, corporations and goverment, who have switched to Linux, where I believe it's Munich in Germany, switched and has saved a very large amount of money.  It brings to mind the inefficiency of government that that project is not mentioned by governments when clearly this is the solution.  Again, more money, via support, in the projects means much faster development of open source programs.

MS and government?  Bad alliance...

[JoninOz]

The proof is in the pudding.
Our local Council installed a new system, a magnamonious MESS!
Our State Government installed a new system in the Health Services Dept., a multi-magnamonious MESS. Some employees did not get a wage for many weeks and went on strike, some were over-paid and refused to repay the money........ad infinitum!

Governments and common sense would be a good alliance.

[marko]

JoninOz, on 19 June 2012 - 04:00 AM, said:

Our local Council installed a new system, a magnamonious MESS!
Our State Government installed a new system in the Health Services Dept., a multi-magnamonious MESS. Some employees did not get a wage for many weeks and went on strike, some were over-paid and refused to repay the money........ad infinitum!

That has the company I used to work for written all over it JoninOz, EDS?

[Joozzt]

They should not need to have anti-virus (which is a lost cause anyway with lots of false security) and go back and look into the root of things.

[martoom]

Funny you should mention that Marko - like JoninOz said, Queensland Health is in a dire mess that has gone for years.

Original costs were supposed to be AD40 million, over AD412 million have already been spent and the whole thing is to blow out to AD1.2 billion by 2017 due to the systems in place and contractual arrangements. There are up to 24,000 different pay combinations and 2536 customisations have already been added to the original Workbrain-SAP system ... the list goes on.

Anyway, that also shows why open source is not likely to be a candidate. When it comes to big orgs, the more it costs the ?better? it is, right? The more money is involved the more people get their hands in which, especially when it comes to governments, is a good thing because it means no individual is directly responsible in case something goes wrong (no-one in Qld Health has been held accountable so far).

And then there is the sheer complexity, which would mean that most likely adjustments will have to be made so extra work is needed in any case.

It?s the human element all over again!

[JoninOz]

Hi martoom, nice to meet you and thanks for filling in the details of the Qld. Health MASSIVE BILLION DOLLAR FIASCO. (Jon swears silently just thinking about it !)

[Claw]

Ok guys, pay attention. Government,,,Common Sense,,,,,,, LOL
Governments will not use open source, for the following reason. It will save money, and if they save money then they have one less excuse to charge its citizens an arm and a leg to pay for it.

[James Van Damme]

You have to stay with Microsoft because it sends lots of money to America. Thank you, from a U.S. taxpayer.