It's 2015 And Congress Is Now, Finally, Allowed To Use Open Source Technologies
from the took-'em-long-enough dept
First, the good news: members of the House of Representatives in the US Congress are now allowed to use open source technology in their offices, rather than the very limited list of proprietary offerings they were given in the past. Second, the bad news: how the hell is it 2015 and this is only becoming an option now? I guess we can't change the past, and so let's celebrate the House of Reps finally getting to this point -- which just happens to coincide with the upcoming launch of the House Open Source Caucus (led by Reps. Blake Farenthold and Jared Polis). We've talked plenty about how little Congress understands technology, software and the internet today -- so actually introducing them to the basics of open source software can only help. And, yes, this comes on the heels of a Congressional rep making a pull request on Github. So, maybe (just maybe) we're starting to see more of our elected officials actually taking the time to understand the technologies that their policies will impact.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: congress, house of representatives, open source
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
Can't you even imagine a down side? Does "open source" just blind you to the fact that real audits are impossible among tens of millions of lines of code?
Do you take nothing away from the Google's test with the microphone snooping binary blob of just last week except that next time they should be more subtle?
Do you think corporations are doing most of the developing in Linux now out of real altruism?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
Can't you even imagine a down side? Does "open source" just blind you to the fact that real audits are impossible among tens of millions of lines of code?
Do you take nothing away from the Google's test with the microphone snooping binary blob of just last week except that next time they should be more subtle?
Do you think corporations are doing most of the developing in Linux now out of real altruism?
Here's what occurred to me on third attempt: TOR is open source, and it can defeat your blocking. Just think on a high value target of Congressional office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
Pro tip: your faith in Microsoft is touching, but unwarranted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
Apple Siri does the same, yet I do not hear you complaining about it. Also it is much harder to determine if Siri is tuned off or merely muted, or how long voice was being captured before Sira was announced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
If I'm going to use Siri, I need to turn it on first, by either pressing and holding my mic button or the home button. While activation of the microphone in Apple products IS software based, I can't think of a situation where a UI trigger is not needed to enable audio or video.
And as someone who has had jailbroken iOS devices since iOS 3, let me tell you that I know exactly when Siri was introduced, and before that, the on-board voice command technology (which is virtually identical, sans-going-to-icloud-to-look-things-up-tech) definitely didn't turn on the mic to listen, much to my frustration. You need third-party hacks to do this on OS X or iOS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wrong as usual, Moonbeam! Do you and they understand that allowing just any software is huge risk?
Except, people aren't talking about "unknown" software, they're talking about software that's known and can have its code fully audited.
"Does "open source" just blind you to the fact that real audits are impossible among tens of millions of lines of code?"
So, by your own standard NOBODY can effectively audit software. If it's "impossible" to audit Linux, then by your own definition it's also impossible to effectively audit Windows or Office or Photoshop or any other application used that has such levels of code.
Your ranting insanity is making even less sense.
"snooping binary blob"
Your wilful ignorance is showing. By making sure you make it clear that you understand that the objectionable feature was a binary blob, you're also making it clear that you understand that it wasn't open source. In other words, you're arguing for open source, not against.
This "blob" was noticed by open source guys and the objection is that nobody can examine it. Which "blobs" are being installed by the proprietary crap you're defending?
"Do you think corporations are doing most of the developing in Linux now out of real altruism?"
Do you think Microsoft or Apple are doing so? What about other software providers? Is your insanity only applicable to Linux in the same way as your idiocy ignores companies who are doing things far worse than Google?
Yet again, you think you're making a point, but you just make yourself look like an obsessive halfwit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1-It's free (though there are a lot of them that offer professional implementation with scalability for a price)
2-It can be audited, which is good. You'll hardly sneak some malicious code inside *cough*NSA*cough*
3-It is usually updated frequently to correct security issues, bugs
4-It may fork into something even better or give birth to something that's even more useful (anyone can use and modify the code)
5-It can be customized to your needs
Sure there are more positive points but, really, I just wish M$ shoots its feet hard with the next Windows iterations so Linux can gain even more ground.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just wish M$ shoots its feet hard with the next Windows iterations so Linux can gain even more ground.
I've often felt the same way, but from early indications it doesn't sound to me like they are. It sounds like they're actually trying to improve their products in a way that make them more useful to customers. (I know ... shocking!) Two examples that spring to mind: 1) recent versions of Windows Server don't require a GUI. 2) I've heard that Win10 is going to come with Virtual Desktops by default.
Both of those concepts that have been default (or at least common) in the *nix world for decades. If MS is finally getting its head out of its ass and at least trying to do things the right way, that's a win, imo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Here's my list from 2009 What's wrong with windows.
Apparently 2 of those get fixed until 2015, which means Windows should finally be usable somewhere around 2050.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"Microsoft Windows is a basically an 80ies operating system... Kernel. Might be quite good, but it has one big deficiency: It’s not Unix"
Erm, so your first 2 criticisms of Windows are that it's an 80s OS and its kernel isn't based on a 70s OS?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There was a huge debate internationally over OOXML vs ODF or other open file formats, on top of . The problem with a lot of the implementation is that MS have such an ingrained defacto monopoly that other choices are either not allowed or not properly considered - or that so much existing work is in the proprietary format that it would be difficult to move. Confusion/FUD and lockin have long been two of Microsoft's favoured tools. The above story should hopefully be the start of a change in this.
"It sounds like they're actually trying to improve their products in a way that make them more useful to customers."
They have actual competition for the first time in a long time. This is one of the things I always point to with monopolies. MS products were horrible to work with, and their attitude was to use lock-ins and other dirty tactics to keep their defacto monopoly combined with anti-consumer practices. For example, when IE6 was pretty much the only game in town they stated that no future version would be standalone - to get IE7, you'd need to buy Vista. They changed their tune when Firefox suddenly appeared and took significant marketshare. Without competition, you'd probably be forced to upgrade just to get the latest IE patches.
"recent versions of Windows Server don't require a GUI"
...but they're still making fundamental mistakes. You can run a lot of server functions from a non-GUI - but not all, if my understanding is correct. On top of that, the GUI that did ship with Server 2012 was based on the touchscreen Metro interface. That move didn't make sense on a standard laptop by default, let alone a server!
" If MS is finally getting its head out of its ass and at least trying to do things the right way, that's a win, imo."
Yes, although it might mean that they retain a near monopoly through consumer apathy or some actual quality rather than the ways they've retained it in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Besides, they are offering upgrades and I honestly think it's a very bad choice to upgrade from older versions, a clean install will lead to much less headaches.
I'd love if Microsoft would produce awesome products but, really, not having stuff with a Linux port (specially games) is incredibly annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If you cannot take manual control over when updates get applied, then you cannot use the operating system for anything where interruptions to operations are not allowed or undesirable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
OpenOffice will open and save DOC files; when saving you have to change the format from ODF.
I've had mixed experience with DOCX files: sometimes OpenOffice will open and sometimes not. I've had to open it on a machine with MS' (too high priced) software, then if it isn't just plaintext and has formatting, characters, or imagery I can save it as an older DOC or RTF so I can use it on OpenOffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If government rules won't let you use a different file format, it's extremely unlikely they'll let you use a 3rd party company that stores the documents you convert on their private servers as a workaround.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brilliant!
Does he have any response to your nuanced arguments? Any counterpoints? Does he ever? Answer: no. His entire purpose is to disrupt and derail any reasonable conversation/debate, and you guys not just let him, but enthusiastically help him.
That's just great! For your efforts, have a Report click!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brilliant!
I wonder if they're just replying to themselves?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brilliant!
Your complaining about people responding to trolls also disrupts and derails the conversations too, ya know.
I have no problem when threads go off-topic. Some of the most interesting conversations here have been off-topic and in response to trollish comments. If you have that much of problem with it, you are free to skip over them. That way no one has to conform to what YOU view as a proper discussion forum. Just my 2¢
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
meanwhile in peru...
After these news i see that you need that help, not us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"so who has tried to put copyright on these technologies"
You miss the point of FOSS. It *is* copyrighted, but those who work on the projects have chosen to release them on a far less restrictive licence than that applied by the standard automatic version, which is usually also one that prevents people from removing the open parts of it later on. Some so still try, of course, but it's proven to work pretty well so far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This only matters until TPP is signed, right?
Polis and the Open Source Software Caucus need to get off their high horse, and start using what every other right-thinking citizen/subject of the USA uses: Microsoft Word. Nothing else is needed or wanted. Up yours, open source elitists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Our governmen (not) at work!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]