Obama shows interest in open source
By John Lister
The Obama administration has asked Sun co-founder Scott McNealy to advise it on the practicalities of open source technology in government. Some are questioning the choice of consultant given McNealy once said Linux was suited to hobbyists.
McNealy tells the BBC he will encourage the US government to avoid becoming reliant on individual technology companies. He touts the benefits of open source as being higher quality, more reliable and more secure software at a lower price.
The Open Source Initiative claims the US ‘loses’ at least $400 billion a year by buying commercial proprietary software rather then open source alternatives. It’s not entirely clear if this estimate is for government alone or all software buyers.
On the surface McNealy seems a logical choice to oversee the options for open source. It’s the firm behind the popular Java system which has largely been available on an open source basis since 2006.
However, the Arstechnica site questions McNealy’s commitment to open source, pointing to a 2003 speech in which he said there was no good reason for businesses to use open source and dismissed it as a “great environment for the hobbyist”.
Writer Ryan Paul suggests a better fit for the post would be Sue Payton, a senior Department of Defense official who has championed open source as a cheaper and more flexible option, particularly in front line combat.
McNealy has already made one proposal which is causing dispute. He’s calling for Obama to create a cabinet position for a Chief Information Officer who would have veto power over any technology acquisitions that affect the federal network.
Critics say this would be unnecessary and question whether such an official could deal with the bureaucracy involved in enforcing such decisions. There’s also a natural suspicion that McNealy could be angling to fill such a post himself.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Thursday, January 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 pm
under
Read more entries by John Lister.
Stumble It!
January 22nd, 2009
That’s fascinating. Its a huge sum of money that could go back into helping our economy (or used to maybe pay those stupid coupons for the digital transition :P). However, I feel a little reluctant to put sensitive federal information on programs who’s source code is freely available to the public. That makes it easier to hack, does it?
As far as the cabinet position, I think it makes a lot of sense. Surely the CTO would know more about the technology that the federal government wants to implement than some politician.
“…whether such an official could deal with the bureaucracy involved in enforcing such decisions”
Oh please… I can understand wanting someone with a strong political background as well as a strong technical background, but this seems like a really poor reason to simply not create the position.
January 22nd, 2009
There are certainly many applications where the Govt would be much better off with open source. For example, I see little need for Government departments to be using Microsoft Office, when Open Office is so good, and getting better every day.
January 22nd, 2009
No, actually having the code freely available gets issues resolved and allows customization. Microsoft is closed source and doesn’t seem to be especially secure.
This CTO idea is more stupid window dressing propping up the false premise that motion is the same as productivity.
You won’t get one that isn’t slanted in one way or another, most of the people he will reporting to aren’t going to be able to judge if the premise is true or not and dealing with commercial and government is vastly different.
It’s relatively simple to get a decent idea if a project is going to pay off in a private enterprise because the metric is more geared toward individual accountability.
It would be great to have this Czar of Tech but it needs to be kept clear of serving at the pleasure of the Prez.
The responsibility over herding cats, which is really what we’re talking about with the scope and length of time, should not be someone who is leaving every 4 or 8 years. This is how we end up systems who have incompatible architectures.
If it is an empty window dressing PR move why bother? The President can easily appoint a council and get several recommendations.
I know all the gushing about the “digital President” is amusing, but Clinton and Gore actually put Whitehouse on the web, Dean actually made the solicitation and raising funds on the web important, and if you think he is going to be twittering or writing his own blog entry very long, you are deluded or we are in deep do do. Being able to flip a light switch and preferring the ones with the little light at the tip doesn’t mean I’m an electrician.
If you want to give the post actual teeth get a solid apolitical low public profile ops guy/woman who looks past ephemeral shiny glint with a thick skin and give them the freedom from the need to pander. A person like Jobs who is a true genius is really not a good fit, think about how Perot fit GM.