No subject
Tue Apr 3 04:05:46 UTC 2007
I will be addressing today - how can the open source sector be more
effectively utilised by Federal Government Departments and agencies?
On the face of it shouldn't be difficult. Open source software can
effectively serve the needs of Government in many ways:=20
* By offering improved value for money over proprietary
software through innovation and interoperability;
* By offering a new approach to security;
* Through its greater reliability=20
* The use of open source software also coincides with
principles of open Government.
In addition to these points, the adoption of open source software by
Governments would also have positive impact on industry development.
Despite the obvious benefits, there are a number of challenges which
stand in the way of open source. These are chiefly owing to the fact
the market incumbents - proprietary software vendors - have built whole
business strategies around client lock-in. In this sense, open source
providers are the new challengers.
For the dominance of proprietary software to be challenged, a change of
attitude from the Government is required. Government must have the will
to remove the bias, but the open source industry itself will need to
make sure its interests are represented.
Open Source and value for money
It scarcely needs to be said that Governments have to watch what they
spend.
Around the world, Governments are exploring open source with the aim of
cutting ICT costs. France, Germany, and the UK have all expressed this
aim as one reason for adopting of open source.
Telstra is hoping to cut its annual $1.5 Billion IT budget by half with
open source.
The irony of this Telstra decision is that they led the way in Australia
with the now defunct whole-of-enterprise IT outsourcing model through
IBMGSA - formerly a Telstra, IBM and Lendlease company.
The Howard Government made many false claims regarding the cost savings
generated by their failed IT Outsourcing program. I am not convinced
that IT changes, and this includes the implementation of open source
software, will necessarily lead to cost savings.=20
The economic benefits lie in getting "more bang for the buck". With less
emphasis on licensing fees, and increased competition coming from a
reduced likelihood of vendor lock-in, open source software can provide
far greater value for money to Governments.
The prospects of continuing innovation leading to better solutions alone
holds great appeal.
So, although there may not be cost reductions in money terms, innovative
solutions and better implementation will mean that you get a better
system for the same budget.
Open Source and Security
Security is an important consideration for Governments, both in terms of
national security, and for the protection of the huge amounts of
personal information they hold.
Maintaining the integrity of Government information systems is always a
high priority.
Not so long ago, open source software had a down-payment on security.
The "many eyes" approach was winning over the sceptics, who could see
the benefits of many talented people evaluating code for security flaws,
rather than relying on the assurances of a proprietary company.
The best analogy I came across was of a car engine: where proprietary
software resembles a car with its bonnet welded shut, while open source
is a car with the bonnet open and thousands of mechanics taking a look.
Open source systems have also proved their value in the field.
According to the Symantec Online Virus Encyclopaedia, Symantec has
released over 1,600 security responses for viruses targeting Microsoft
products, compared to only 12 for viruses targeting Linux.
Open source has been adopted in US Departments, such as the NSA, the
White House, the CIA, and the Department of Defense. In fact, in
response to suggestions that open source should be removed from Defense,
the Department said:
"Banning open source would have immediate, broad, and strongly
negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security focused
DOD groups to protect themselves against cyber-attacks."
That's quite a rap.
At the time proprietary software providers seemed to place a lower
profile on security. In some cases it may have been felt that spending
money on revamping software security would not be good business sense.
As Michael Paddon, the immediate past President of the AUUG put it to me
in the Joint House Committee hearing on the Management and integrity of
electronic information in the Commonwealth,
"How many people would go out and spend another $500 on a new
version of Windows just because it was a bit more secure?"
Additionally, Bill Caelli, an E-Security expert and last years' winner
of the Trevor Pearcey Medal, makes an even stronger point: he argues
that improved security is never vendor led.
However, the situation is changing, and proprietary software companies
have started focusing on the security of their products.
Microsoft, for example is demonstrating that it is willing to spend big
money on security. It has spent $176 million dollars taking off 8,500
developers from the Windows platform to review existing code for
security flaws.
Microsoft boasts about this, but I think it shows the depth of their
problem.
I don't know if that is a sustainable way to secure one's code in the
long term, but it demonstrates that big proprietary firms are taking
security seriously. They are actively trying to prove to the Federal
Government that proprietary security is better than the "many eyes" that
open source offers.
The real challenge for Government is to know more than the software
sales team. This is a huge challenge and means that the Government must
be a smart buyer.
This is a point that I will be returning to later.
Open source and reliability
One of the theories of having software that everyone can poke around
with is that bugs get squashed quite quickly.
Open source advocates sometimes boast that their patches are often
released in a matter of hours, unlike proprietary software patches which
may take months.
I'm a little sceptical about this - I'm sure there are fast and slow
examples in both cases.
Nonetheless, over the years the statistics have demonstrated that peer
review is a successful method of building reliable software.
There have been very few independent reliability studies conducted
recently, but of those done in the past, open source software
consistently came out on top.
One experiment, conducted by Bloor Research found that over one year, a
machine equipped with a GNU/Linux operating system crashed once - taking
four hours to fix.
In contrast, a similar machine equipped with Windows NT crashed 68
times, taking 65 hours to fix in total.
A 10 month long server test in 1999, conducted by ZDNet found that while
NT crashed only once every six weeks, the two Linux machines tested
never went down.
Windows technology no doubt has improved since 1999, but undoubtedly so
has Linux.
I am also intrigued by the ongoing Netcraft Survey of the 50 most
requested internet sites with the longest uptimes. Last time I looked,
which was yesterday, 47 of these (or 94%) were running Apache server
software.
Open Source and principles of Open Government
I am also reminded, as I'm sure are so many of you, of the points about
open source and open government, so fluently raised by Peruvian
Congressman, Edgar Villanueva Nunez in his now famous open letter to
Microsoft.
Democratic, and accountable, governments must have their processes -
even their IT processes - available to public scrutiny.
To this end Labor has advocated that IT contracts should be made public
to allow more scrutiny. However, Dr Nunez goes further.
To quote Dr Nunez,
"the citizen has a legitimate right to know how his vote is
computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access
to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs
used for electoral computations or the calculation of his taxes."
For this, open source software is clearly well suited. Furthermore,
through the use of open file formats, Governments can ensure that public
documents are also available to everyone - now or twenty years from now.
This is not possible under proprietary file formats, which may not be
accessible if a document format is lost over time. This issue of
archiving and ensuring access in the future without the need for an
ongoing commercial relationship is essential.
Currently XML is being adopted, and this is a positive step, but vendor
extensions to XML could defeat the purpose.
These four attributes of open source software - value for money,
security, reliability, and support for open government all can
potentially benefit the Government as a procurer of software.
Open Source and Industry Development
However, open source software also promotes industry development because
it encourages innovation. This should be an important consideration for
the Federal Government.
Open source licenses allow any small-to-medium sized software firm to
work on pre-existing state-of-the-art technology, without having to
start from scratch. This maximises the capacity for innovation, as
business resources wouldn't have to be expended re-inventing or
re-modelling the wheel.
Depending on the license that the software is issued under - for example
the BSD license - an SME could even use existing code in proprietary
software it released.
By adopting open source software solutions for projects, a Federal
Government department would potentially be more open to local
enterprises, rather than simply the big foreign multinationals
This is an important consideration. It would promote local industry
development, and would act to slow the growth of our enormous ICT
foreign debt - $14.4 billion in 2001-02 alone.
Another good reason why open source software should be a part of
Government information systems is that it also reduces technological
dependence on companies, and potentially other countries.
Other countries have realised this, especially in our region. Earlier
this month Japan, South Korea and China were reported to be planning
their own alternative operating system to Windows, in order to reduce
their dependency on a foreign-owned product, and to boost their own
local industry.
China of course has famously developed its own Linux brand, Red Flag,
partly as a measure to improve its own local industry, as well as
removing its reliance on foreign software. I am also aware that
Governments in Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines are considering
establishing local open source development initiatives to build their
own industries.
Unfortunately, the Australian Government hasn't been so innovative, and
I would like to conclude by highlighting some of the hurdles that the
open source community is facing in selling their technology to the
Federal Government.
The first hurdle is Federal Government resistance. When it comes to
purchasing ICT, the public service is a risk averse, conservative place.
In IT purchasing it does not have a great deal of corporate memory,
thanks to the defunct IT outsourcing program, which stripped the public
sector of experience.
With the exception of a few notable examples - Centrelink, and the
Department of Veterans' Affairs - the default position for ICT
purchasers is to go with big vendor proprietary software, combined with
vendor lock in. Being the familiar option, it is felt to be less risky.
My impression is that this is compounded by a lack of understanding of
open source software. It seems to me that at least some potential
purchasing officers are not smart buyers, and are somewhat led astray to
the fear, uncertainty and doubt that they receive from the multinational
proprietary firms which come knocking at their doors.
The open source movement hasn't been helped in this regard by the SCO
lawsuit against IBM. Even if it is unsuccessful, the effect of this
tactic will be to scare people - including public servants - off from
open source solutions.
The Howard Government, beholden to the big multinational ICT firms, such
as CSC, EDS and Microsoft, has shown no real interest in changing this
situation. So far all that they have produced was a single open source
seminar in February this year. Some would call it a good start, but
there has been nothing since.
It is my opinion that the Howard Government should be showing more
leadership in this area. This is not to say open source should be
mandated for Government contracts, but just that the institutionalised
bias in favour of proprietary software should be actively challenged. A
fair deal for every potential vendor, if you like.
However, if Government resistance is to be broken down, the open source
community needs to better lobby the Federal Government at an Industry
level.
This is not to say that there is not lobbying being done at the moment,
but more needs to be done, if only to balance the renewed effort being
put forward by proprietary software firms.
The proprietary software lobby was caught napping by the rise of open
source, but they are now making up for it.
Microsoft has started its own lobby group, the quaintly named Initiative
for Software Choice, which seems dedicated to going after open source
software developers.
Security is a classic example. I mentioned earlier that Microsoft had
taken steps to improve its credentials in this area.
Another Microsoft initiative is its "Government Security Program". This
is a scheme to partially recreate a feature of open source software for
its proprietary code by letting Government agencies "look under the
bonnet" of its software.
It's an acknowledgement of the "many eyes" advantage of open source
software, and Microsoft has been quick to learn from it.
I am not saying this to praise Microsoft, but as a warning to the open
source community - if you want to be attractive to Government purchasers
then you must confront these competitive threats.
Without doubt we need to see very big steps from Government to make sure
that the marketplace is fair. But the reality of the situation is - and
I've not spoken to a single open source advocate who doesn't agree - the
open source software industry must compete for its market space.
And I don't think this is an impossible task. The open source industry,
almost by definition is an innovative and creative. You must give the
government no choice but to acknowledge this.
The bias towards proprietary software must be removed and it's the
Government's responsibility to do this.
This creates the grounds for greater intervention in the procurement
process. At the barest minimum, meaningful market testing of open
source solutions for government enterprises needs to occur now.
Government can also review vendor lock-in and assess new proposals to
ensure this is not perpetuated,
Finally, to return to the theme of digital landlords, Government must be
a smart enough buyer to prove it is not merely favouring one standard of
software over another.
Jason Ives
IT Advisor
Office of Senator Kate Lundy
Shadow Minister for Information Technology & Sport
Ph: 02 6277 3334 or 0411 237 683
jason.ives at aph.gov.au
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3782E.8A1CDBF0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii">
<META NAME=3D"Generator" CONTENT=3D"MS Exchange Server version =
6.0.6396.0">
<TITLE>SPEECH (9/11/2003) "Open Source Software: Providing Greater =
Security and Innovation in the Delivery of E-Government =
Services"</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/rtf format -->
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><B><FONT SIZE=3D6 FACE=3D"Arial">Senator Kate =
Lundy</FONT></B></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Senator for the Australian =
Capital Territory </FONT></B></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">Shadow Minister for the Arts, =
Sport</FONT></B></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><B><FONT FACE=3D"Arial">and Information =
Technology</FONT></B></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><FONT SIZE=3D5 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open Source =
Software Conference</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><FONT SIZE=3D5 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Sydney, 11 =
September 2003</FONT></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><B><FONT SIZE=3D5 FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open Source =
Software: Providing Greater Security and Innovation in the Delivery of =
E-Government Services</FONT></B></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Thankyou for the invitation to speak =
here today. I am going to start by taking a big picture =
view.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The Information Age in which we all =
now live has brought with it two rules:</FONT>
</P>
<UL>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">1. That =
influence and power accrue to those who can control information flows; =
and</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">2. That =
those information flows are harder to control than ever before.</FONT>
</P>
</UL>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The awkward resolution of these two =
diametrically opposed precepts can be seen almost daily; usually =
undertaken as court battles over the new territory that defines this =
Information Age – intellectual property.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The conflicts are fought between the =
old information empires – the copyright holders: record labels; =
proprietary software firms, and so on – and the new challengers, =
those empowered with digital technology – a PC, an internet =
connection – and a healthy disrespect for, or a lack of awareness =
of, intellectual property boundary markers.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">From these border skirmishes over =
intellectual property I get the impression that, despite the technology =
of the challengers, it is the old landlords who are winning.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">We all know the fate of Napster, and I =
read just yesterday that a 12 year old girl was forced to settle with a =
record label, after she had unlawfully, so it was implied, appropriated =
music that did not belong to her.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">And this is only one of hundreds of =
lawsuits being thrown at those people the digital landlords consider =
“trespassers”. Others include children copying games =
and businesses using proprietary software outside the licensing =
conditions.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">So, what does this have to do with =
open source software? Although far from a new phenomenon, open =
source software represents a new way of managing intellectual =
property.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">It defies the traditional method of =
distributing software through a system of proprietary licenses, and =
instead says “I know I can’t stop you from redistributing =
me, so I’m not going to insult you by demanding that you =
don’t.”</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">It is a system that renders these =
conflicts over IP nonsensical.</FONT>
</P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Up until recently, the landlords did =
not really notice open source software. It was a haven of the =
techies, computing professionals, academics and internet =
devotees.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">I remember reading an article in 2001 =
which said that open source software would never secure a significant =
chunk of the software market.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">It might hold its own as a server =
technology, the article said, but it was simply too user unfriendly to =
threaten and dislodge Microsoft from the PC software =
environment.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">That’s not the case any =
more. The open source movement has poked its head above the radar, =
and is now posing a serious challenge to the old empires of the =
proprietary software firms, as businesses and Governments around the =
world start taking notice.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open source has entered the =
mainstream, to such an extent that the Butler Group predicts that Linux =
will be the dominant operating system by 2009.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The headline on last week’s<I> =
Australian IT</I> pages: “Telstra’s open-source push hurts =
Microsoft” pressed home the reality of this claim. The article =
beneath it stated that Telstra would be switching to open source right =
across the company – desktops, web servers and applications =
servers and believe me, you cannot get more mainstream than =
Telstra.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">So, why has this occurred? To =
put it simply, open source software products have become more user =
friendly to the wider market and now appeals to people beyond computing =
professionals and academics.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The arrival of for-profit open source =
businesses, which started with enterprises like Red Hat and now include =
IBM and Sun Microsystems, has meant that the products have become more =
commercially orientated.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This includes aesthetics. From =
what I have seen, the days when Linux desktops were ugly, although =
undoubtedly very functional, grey screened monstrosities, are =
gone.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">If anything, Linux desktops look =
slicker than Windows, and are replete with a whole raft of applications =
which, importantly, look and feel like the proprietary products that =
most of us were raised on.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">A hard-core techie may scoff at such =
cosmetic features but they make a difference to regular users, who think =
that if something looks cheap, and it’s free, it must be =
inferior.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">From my perspective, the next big =
question is – and this is the question I will be addressing today =
– how can the open source sector be more effectively utilised by =
Federal Government Departments and agencies?</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">On the face of it shouldn’t be =
difficult. Open source software can effectively serve the needs of =
Government in many ways: </FONT></P>
<UL>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Symbol">·<FONT FACE=3D"Courier =
New"> </FONT></FONT> <FONT =
FACE=3D"Times New Roman">By offering improved value for money over =
proprietary software through innovation and interoperability;</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Symbol">·<FONT FACE=3D"Courier =
New"> </FONT></FONT> <FONT =
FACE=3D"Times New Roman">By offering a new approach to security;</FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Symbol">·<FONT FACE=3D"Courier =
New"> </FONT></FONT> <FONT =
FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Through its greater reliability </FONT>
<BR><FONT FACE=3D"Symbol">·<FONT FACE=3D"Courier =
New"> </FONT></FONT> <FONT =
FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The use of open source software also coincides =
with principles of open Government.</FONT>
</P>
</UL>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">In addition to these points, the =
adoption of open source software by Governments would also have positive =
impact on industry development.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Despite the obvious benefits, there =
are a number of challenges which stand in the way of open source. =
These are chiefly owing to the fact the market incumbents – =
proprietary software vendors – have built whole business =
strategies around client lock-in. In this sense, open source =
providers are the new challengers.</FONT></P>
<P><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">For the dominance of proprietary =
software to be challenged, a change of attitude from the Government is =
required. Government must have the will to remove the bias, but =
the open source industry itself will need to make sure its interests are =
represented.</FONT></P>
<P><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open Source and value for =
money</FONT></B>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">It scarcely needs =
to be said that Governments have to watch what they spend.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Around the world, =
Governments are exploring open source with the aim of cutting ICT =
costs. France, Germany, and the UK have all expressed this aim as =
one reason for adopting of open source.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Telstra is hoping =
to cut its annual $1.5 Billion IT budget by half with open =
source.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The irony of this =
Telstra decision is that they led the way in Australia with the now =
defunct whole-of-enterprise IT outsourcing model through IBMGSA – =
formerly a Telstra, IBM and Lendlease company.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The Howard =
Government made many false claims regarding the cost savings generated =
by their</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"> <FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">failed IT Outsourcing program. I am not convinced that IT =
changes, and this includes the implementation of open source software, =
will necessarily lead to cost savings.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-gb"> </SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The economic =
benefits lie in getting “more bang for the buck”. With =
less</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> =
emphasis on licensing fees, and increased competition coming from a =
reduced likelihood of vendor lock-in, open source software can provide =
far greater value for money to Governments.</FONT></SPAN><SPAN =
LANG=3D"en-gb"></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The prospects of =
continuing innovation leading to better solutions alone holds great =
appeal.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">So, although =
there may not be cost reductions in money terms, innovative solutions =
and better implementation will mean that you get a better system for the =
same budget.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open Source =
and Security</FONT></B></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Security is an =
important consideration for Governments, both in terms of national =
security, and for the protection of the huge amounts of personal =
information they hold.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Maintaining the =
integrity of Government information systems is always a high =
priority.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Not so long ago, =
open source software had a down-payment on security. The =
“many eyes” approach was winning over the sceptics, who =
could see the benefits of many talented people evaluating code for =
security flaws, rather than relying on the assurances of a proprietary =
company.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The best analogy =
I came across was of a car engine: where proprietary software resembles =
a car with its bonnet welded shut, while open source is a car with the =
bonnet open and thousands of mechanics taking a look.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open source =
systems have also proved their value in the field. According to =
the Symantec Online Virus Encyclopaedia, Symantec has released over =
1,600 security responses for viruses targeting Microsoft products, =
compared to only 12 for viruses targeting Linux.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open source has =
been adopted in US Departments, such as the NSA, the White House, the =
CIA, and the Department of Defense. In fact, in response to =
suggestions that open source should be removed from Defense, the =
Department said:</FONT></SPAN></P>
<UL>
<P ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><I><FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">“Banning open source would have immediate, broad, and =
strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security =
focused DOD groups to protect themselves against =
cyber-attacks.”</FONT></I></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">That’s =
quite a rap.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">At the time =
proprietary software providers seemed to place a lower profile on =
security. In some cases it may have been felt that spending money =
on revamping software security would not be good business sense. =
As Michael Paddon, the immediate past President of the AUUG put it to me =
in the Joint House Committee hearing on the Management and integrity of =
electronic information in the Commonwealth,</FONT></SPAN></P>
<UL>
<P ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><I><FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">“How many people would go out and spend another $500 on a =
new version of Windows just because it was a bit more =
secure?”</FONT></I></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Additionally, =
Bill Caelli, an E-Security expert and last years’ winner of the =
Trevor Pearcey Medal, makes an even stronger point: he argues that =
improved security is</FONT><I> <FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">never</FONT></I><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> vendor =
led.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">However, the =
situation is changing, and proprietary software companies have started =
focusing on the security of their products.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Microsoft, for =
example is demonstrating that it</FONT><I> <FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">is</FONT></I><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> willing to spend big =
money on security. It has spent $176 million dollars taking off =
8,500 developers from the Windows platform to review existing code for =
security flaws.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Microsoft boasts =
about this, but I think it shows the depth of their =
problem.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">I don’t =
know if that is a sustainable way to secure one’s code in the long =
term, but it demonstrates that big proprietary firms are taking security =
seriously. They are actively trying to prove to the Federal =
Government that proprietary security is better than the “many =
eyes” that open source offers.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The real =
challenge for Government is to know more than the software sales =
team. This is a huge challenge and means that the Government must =
be a smart buyer.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This is a point =
that I will be returning to later.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open source =
and reliability</FONT></B></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">One of the =
theories of having software that everyone can poke around with is that =
bugs get squashed quite quickly.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open source =
advocates sometimes boast that their patches are often released in a =
matter of hours, unlike proprietary software patches which may take =
months.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">I’m a =
little sceptical about this – I’m sure there are fast and =
slow examples in both cases.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Nonetheless, over =
the years the statistics have demonstrated that peer review is a =
successful method of building reliable software.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">There have been =
very few independent reliability studies conducted recently, but of =
those done in the past, open source software consistently came out on =
top.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">One experiment, =
conducted by Bloor Research found that over one year, a machine equipped =
with a GNU/Linux operating system crashed once – taking four hours =
to fix.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">In contrast, a =
similar machine equipped with Windows NT crashed 68 times, taking 65 =
hours to fix in total.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">A 10 month long =
server test in 1999, conducted by ZDNet found that while NT crashed only =
once every six weeks, the two Linux machines tested</FONT><I> <FONT =
FACE=3D"Times New Roman">never</FONT></I><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman"> =
went down.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Windows =
technology no doubt has improved since 1999, but undoubtedly so has =
Linux.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">I am also =
intrigued by the ongoing Netcraft Survey of the 50 most requested =
internet sites with the longest uptimes. Last time I looked, which =
was yesterday, 47 of these (or 94%) were running Apache server =
software.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open Source =
and principles of Open Government</FONT></B></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">I am also =
reminded, as I’m sure are so many of you, of the points about open =
source and open government, so fluently raised by Peruvian Congressman, =
Edgar Villanueva Nunez in his now famous open letter to =
Microsoft.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Democratic, and =
accountable, governments must have their processes – even their IT =
processes – available to public scrutiny.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">To this end Labor =
has advocated that IT contracts should be made public to allow more =
scrutiny. However, Dr Nunez goes further.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">To quote Dr =
Nunez,</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<UL>
<P ALIGN=3DJUSTIFY><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><I><FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">“the citizen has a legitimate right to know how his vote is =
computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access =
to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs =
used for electoral computations or the calculation of his =
taxes.”</FONT></I></SPAN></P>
</UL>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">For this, open =
source software is clearly well suited. Furthermore, through the =
use of open file formats, Governments can ensure that public documents =
are also available to everyone – now or twenty years from =
now.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This is not =
possible under proprietary file formats, which may not be accessible if =
a document format is lost over time. This issue of archiving and =
ensuring access in the future without the need for an ongoing commercial =
relationship is essential.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Currently XML is =
being adopted, and this is a positive step, but vendor extensions to XML =
could defeat the purpose.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">These four =
attributes of open source software – value for money, security, =
reliability, and support for open government all can potentially benefit =
the Government as a procurer of software.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><B><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open Source =
and Industry Development</FONT></B></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">However, open =
source software also promotes industry development because it encourages =
innovation. This should be an important consideration for the =
Federal Government.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Open source =
licenses allow any small-to-medium sized software firm to work on =
pre-existing</FONT></SPAN><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"> <FONT FACE=3D"Times New =
Roman">state-of-the-art technology, without having to start from =
scratch. This maximises the capacity for innovation, as business =
resources wouldn’t have to be expended re-inventing or =
re-modelling the wheel.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Depending on the =
license that the software is issued under – for example the BSD =
license – an SME could even use existing code in proprietary =
software it released.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">By adopting open =
source software solutions for projects, a Federal Government department =
would potentially be more open to local enterprises, rather than simply =
the big foreign multinationals</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-gb"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This is an =
important consideration. It would promote local industry =
development, and would act to slow the growth of our enormous ICT =
foreign debt – $14.4 billion in 2001-02 alone.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Another good =
reason why open source software should be a part of Government =
information systems is that it also reduces technological dependence on =
companies, and potentially other countries.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Other countries =
have realised this, especially in our region. Earlier this month =
Japan, South Korea and China were reported to be planning their own =
alternative operating system to Windows, in order to reduce their =
dependency on a foreign-owned product, and to boost their own local =
industry.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">China of course =
has famously developed its own Linux brand, Red Flag, partly as a =
measure to improve its own local industry, as well as removing its =
reliance on foreign software. I am also aware that Governments in =
Taiwan, Thailand and the Philippines are considering establishing local =
open source development initiatives to build their own =
industries.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Unfortunately, =
the Australian Government hasn’t been so innovative, and I would =
like to conclude by highlighting some of the hurdles that the open =
source community is facing in selling their technology to the Federal =
Government.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The first hurdle =
is Federal Government resistance. When it comes to purchasing ICT, =
the public service is a risk averse, conservative place. In IT =
purchasing it does not have a great deal of corporate memory, thanks to =
the defunct IT outsourcing program, which stripped the public sector of =
experience.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">With the =
exception of a few notable examples – Centrelink, and the =
Department of Veterans’ Affairs – the default position for =
ICT purchasers is to go with big vendor proprietary software, combined =
with vendor lock in. Being the familiar option, it is felt to be =
less risky.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">My impression is =
that this is compounded by a lack of understanding of open source =
software. It seems to me that at least some potential purchasing =
officers are not smart buyers, and are somewhat led astray to the fear, =
uncertainty and doubt that they receive from the multinational =
proprietary firms which come knocking at their doors.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The open source =
movement hasn’t been helped in this regard by the SCO lawsuit =
against IBM. Even if it is unsuccessful, the effect of this tactic =
will be to scare people – including public servants – off =
from open source solutions.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The Howard =
Government, beholden to the big multinational ICT firms, such as CSC, =
EDS and Microsoft, has shown no real interest in changing this =
situation. So far all that they have produced was a single open =
source seminar in February this year. Some would call it a good =
start, but there has been nothing since.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">It is my opinion =
that the Howard Government should be showing more leadership in this =
area. This is not to say open source should be mandated for =
Government contracts, but just that the institutionalised bias in favour =
of proprietary software should be actively challenged. A fair deal =
for every potential vendor, if you like.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">However, if =
Government resistance is to be broken down, the open source community =
needs to better lobby the Federal Government at an Industry =
level.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This is not to =
say that there is not lobbying being done at the moment, but more needs =
to be done, if only to balance the renewed effort being put forward by =
proprietary software firms.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The proprietary =
software lobby was caught napping by the rise of open source, but they =
are now making up for it.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Microsoft has =
started its own lobby group, the quaintly named Initiative for Software =
Choice, which seems dedicated to going after open source software =
developers.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Security is a =
classic example. I mentioned earlier that Microsoft had taken =
steps to improve its credentials in this area.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Another Microsoft =
initiative is its “Government Security Program”. This =
is a scheme to partially recreate a feature of open source software for =
its proprietary code by letting Government agencies “look under =
the bonnet” of its software.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">It’s an =
acknowledgement of the “many eyes” advantage of open source =
software, and Microsoft has been quick to learn from =
it.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">I am not saying =
this to praise Microsoft, but as a warning to the open source community =
– if you want to be attractive to Government purchasers then you =
must confront these competitive threats.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Without doubt we =
need to see very big steps from Government to make sure that the =
marketplace is fair. But the reality of the situation is – =
and I’ve not spoken to a single open source advocate who =
doesn’t agree – the open source software industry must =
compete for its market space.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">And I don’t =
think this is an impossible task. The open source industry, almost =
by definition is an innovative and creative. You must give the =
government no choice but to acknowledge this.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">The bias towards =
proprietary software must be removed and it’s the =
Government’s responsibility to do this.</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">This creates the =
grounds for greater intervention in the procurement process. At =
the barest minimum, meaningful market testing of open source solutions =
for government enterprises needs to occur now.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Government can =
also review vendor lock-in and assess new proposals to ensure this is =
not perpetuated,</FONT></SPAN>
</P>
<P><SPAN LANG=3D"en-au"><FONT FACE=3D"Times New Roman">Finally, to =
return to the theme of digital landlords, Government must be a smart =
enough buyer to prove it is not merely favouring one standard of =
software over another.</FONT></SPAN></P>
<BR>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080" =
FACE=3D"Garamond">Jason Ives</FONT></B></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080" =
FACE=3D"Garamond">IT Advisor</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080" =
FACE=3D"Garamond">Office of Senator Kate Lundy</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080" =
FACE=3D"Garamond">Shadow Minister for Information Technology & =
Sport</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080" =
FACE=3D"Garamond">Ph: 02 6277 3334 or 0411 237 683</FONT></SPAN></P>
<P ALIGN=3DCENTER><SPAN LANG=3D"en-us"><B><FONT COLOR=3D"#008080" =
FACE=3D"Garamond">jason.ives at aph.gov.au</FONT></B></SPAN></P>
</BODY>
</HTML>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C3782E.8A1CDBF0--
--Boundary-00=_EOFY/QmFnoppULA--
More information about the linux-aus
mailing list