[Noisebridge-discuss] City of Berkeley explanation of why not using open source.. Open Source vs. "proprietary" software

Tue May 24 23:31:29 UTC 2011

PostgreSQL sounds good, will that integrate well with their existing
software.

I never made a suggestion to technical staff, what I forwarded years was
previous correspondence between IT staff and other commissioners.
I have found the city management staff I've had and opportunity to speak
with to be nontechnical people defaming opensource software. And I have
found their understanding of opensource, and critiques of it to be generally
uninformed,

What I'm trying to do is ask technical people to weigh in on the technical
questions so I can present a reasonable fact checked option.

thank you for your feedback,
Asa

On 24 May 2011 07:41, Jason Dusek <jason.dusek at gmail.com> wrote:

>   Their assessment is a reasonable. Their staff have a lot of
>   MS training and experience; there will be considerable
>   expense and confusion for them should they move to MySQL.
>
>   Also, it is likely that Postgresql is actually a better fit for their
>   needs so why not recommend that? MySQL has been lagging
>   on core relational database features for quite some time.
>
>   Forcing technical decisions on technical people for political
>   reasons is unfortunately all too common and leads to
>   inefficiency, stagnation and poor morale. You've made your
>   suggestion and they have rejected it; persisting would only
>   recreate the kind of hierarchical vibe that is both contrary
>   to open source and probably led to the choice of MSFT in
>   the first place. Help them be free to choose open source.
>
> --
> Jason Dusek
>  On May 23, 2011 8:02 PM, "Asa Dodsworth" <asa.dodsworth at gmail.com> wrote:
> > The City Of Berkeley IT staff say that Open Source Database software wold
> > not be desirable, would ya'll like to assess their assessment..
> > I ask as I'm a rent board commissioner who has been trying to understand
> how
> > opensource software can be used to address our software needs.
> >
> > asa
> >
> >
> > Hi, Jay. Here is a brief explanation of how Open Source would play into
> > your project and why it wasn't considered.
> >
> > *Open Source would make the task of automating the Rent Board much more
> > simple.
> > *The biggest challenge the Rent Board faces is converting a manual system
> > that had loosely defined business rules that were not consistently
> applied
> > into a software system that rigorously enforces business rules. We have
> > agreed that there is no off-the-shelf solution that can meet the Rent
> > Board's needs. As we've seen over the past year, the process of
> formalizing
> > business rules is a cultural problem rather than a technological one.
> Once
> > we have accurately and thoroughly defined the business rules, the
> software
> > development process is essentially the same whether we choose Open Source
> or
> > proprietary tools.
> > *
> > Open Source would require less of an investment for the Rent Board.
> > *Since we have determined that there is no readily available
> off-the-shelf
> > solution to adequately fulfill the Rent Board's needs, the only software
> > required is server, web server and database software. Since the City has
> an
> > existing Enterprise agreement with Microsoft and is using virtualization,
> > there is no cost to the Rent Board for server and web server software.
> The
> > City could choose to use MySQL for a database platform, but since Oracle
> > acquired Sun Microsystems, MySQL Enterprise edition (required for an
> > enterprise application like RTS) would be roughly the same cost as SQL
> > Server. Since our network engineers, database administrator and
> programmers
> > are all familiar with SQL Server and do not have MySQL experience, there
> > would be an additional ongoing cost to train staff and keep them educated
> on
> > two disparate database platforms.
> >
> > *Open Source prevents prevents price gouging and other predatory
> practices
> > by companies like Microsoft and Oracle.*
> > In theory, this is correct. The source code for Open Source software like
> > MySQL is published intermittently so that any developer can support the
> > software should the vendor's business practices take an unattractive
> turn.
> > However, a customized version of MySQL, for instance, carries other
> risks.
> > First, database design and coding is extremely specialized and not
> something
> > most programmers are familiar with. It's possible that the 3rd party that
> > supports the product is not qualified to modify the code. Secondly,
> > maintaining a customized version of the software is expensive and not
> most
> > vendor's core business. It's unlikely a vendor would modify something
> like
> > a database engine or operating system unless they had very specialized
> needs
> > and experience to address those needs. Once a vendor has modified the
> base
> > code, it could become proprietary unless they turn around an publish it,
> > thereby counteracting the benefit of going with Open Source in the first
> > place. In terms of City staff modifying Open Source software, the cost
> > would be very high, we would need specialized, dedicated staff to
> maintain
> > and support the software, and the risk of the software becoming unstable
> > would be very high. City programmers are competent at creating small,
> > specialized applications for those needs that can't be filled by
> commercial
> > software -- customizing databases and operating systems exceeds their
> skill
> > set.
> >
> > *Open Source is like alternative energy -- it's the right thing to do and
> we
> > should support it or else it will never get a solid foothold.
> > *First acknowledging the points made above, this is a valid point. Open
> > Source may be a viable option for the City in the future but it is not
> > currently viable. Municipal governments typically let private enterprise
> > work out the kinks before taking risks on new technology. In the past 5
> > years, we have slowly but steadily begun using cloud services for some
> > applications -- when it made sense and we could justify the risk. If we
> are
> > to use Open Source in the future, we will approach it in the same,
> > deliberate way and with adequate research and preparation.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Keith Skinner
> > Renegade Image <http://renegadeimage.wordpress.com/>
> > Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Renegade-Image/150788618296324>
> > Berkeley Afoot <http://urbnwokker.wordpress.com>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.noisebridge.net/pipermail/noisebridge-discuss/attachments/20110524/98ba7399/attachment-0003.html>