[plug] OSS in Gummint translated, with suggestions

[Leon Brooks]

On Monday 24 December 2001 02:16, garry wrote:
> This sounds to me like typical political drivel, but I've forwarded it for
> interest..

I'll translate.

====== begin translation ======

> From: "Dann, Tracy" <Tracy.Dann at noie.gov.au>

> You will appreciate that, in accordance with the Financial Management and
> Accountability Act, it is the obligation of all Government agencies to seek
> best value for money and apply clear and consistent performance-based
> procurement principles to any purchase.

Nice principle, now let's ignore it.

> When tendering for information technology solutions and equipment, it is
> the Government's practice to stipulate requirements in functional terms and
> then evaluate the responses accordingly. Typically, these criteria will
> include the ability to integrate with legacy systems (human resources,
> financial management information systems, etc),

Which means Windows clients, and we'll ignore the Unix and mainframe servers, 
after all, they're outnumbered, aren't they?

> interoperability with other agencies,

Sorry, this Konqueror thing won't run the Deaprtment of XYZ's ActiveX 
controls [wrong!], so we rejected your proposal on interoperability criteria.

> and evidence of a strong support base for any proposed solution.

Which means Windows, since there are very few Unix or Netware support people 
compared to the hordes of point-and-click Minesweeper Consultants and 
Solitaire Experts (MCSEs) swarming over the increasingly tight job market.

> Vendors offering open source software solutions that meet the published
> selection criteria are free to tender for government business
> opportunities.

Having read between the lines, you've got no hope. Feel free to frustrate 
yourselves trying.

> Technology is constantly evolving, and demands on it are becoming more
> sophisticated.

Microsoft is needlessly complicating the technology we use.

> To meet these demands, Government consistently strives to
> ensure technologies provide the appropriate service and are cost-effective.

Where appropriate means Windows because that's what we like, and 
cost-effective is accrding to any Microsoft-sponsored study that contains 
related buzzwords, even if they lied, and even if the scenario is 
fundemantally different from the one under consideration.

> Open source software has been evolving over the past ten years and it is
> possible that, as this model matures, it will have wider universal
> application to both large and small users.

One day. Fortunately, tomorrow never comes.

> In this situation it is
> foreseeable that the Government may adopt open source solutions more
> broadly, however, this ultimately is an individual agency decision.

Again, tomorrow not today, and individual agencies will then run you through 
the above hoops.

> The National Office for the Information Economy is keeping an eye on recent
> global developments in the open source software area to see how these could
> be beneficial to Australia. When available, any information will be
> published on the NOIE web site (www.noie.gov.au).

And we'll see if we can't undermine these disruptive nuisances if their 
own moribund internal procedures don't stymie them for us...

====== end translation ======

Sorry if this post horrified you, it's just me getting jaded in my old age 
and in the face of the traditional annual barrage of ``buy more useless and 
poorly made crud'' advertising.

I would be questioning the absence of policies with regard to larger issues, 
such as:

* privacy (XP contacts Microsoft, or cracker contacts Gummint
  Department, or Microsoft WormOfTheMonth scatters confidential
  documents to the four winds, to say nothing of back doors);

* general control of government IT by a specific alien corporation;

* specific security issues raised by a track record of providing the
  aforementioned back doors (does ASIO prefer the NSA to collect
  their own data within Australia?);

* accountability;

* the overhead of policing proprietary licencing issues (audits, too);

* the sending of much money overseas when it would be better spent
  supporting local businesses and creating knock-on effects like a
  greater training demand and a thriving local software industry;

* blocking out ``the little Aussie battler'' in favour of a monolithic
  and proven-immoral corporation;

and so on.

Until I visit my chiropractor, hopefully this morning, I won't be able to 
scrape together enough grey matter to compose a suitably narrative set of 
questions to match the concerns.

Cheers; Leon