This is kind of funny.
THE US state of Massachusetts has instructed its chief technology officer to adopt a policy of “open standards, open source” for all future spending on information technology.
Hmmm…. let’s make sure that all of our highly sensitive government data is on platforms that any kid can get the source code for. Way to think ahead.
I wonder what the Viking has to say about this.
Another feel-good idea. Presumably the state has access to highly qualified IT people. Do the experts think open source is the right answer for all of the state’s computing needs? I doubt it. Why do legislators feel compelled, or even competent, to do things like this?
There are good reasons for avoiding proprietary software. Here’s one from Ernie Ball.
Your link thing doesn’t work:
http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html?tag=lh
Andjust because applications or operating systems are “open stnadards, open source” doesn’t mean they are unsecure. Just means that applications builders can more tightly integrate their applications - including security apps.
Believe me, I don’t have anything against “Open Source.” I make my living preaching the benefits of it. It’s just kind of ridiculous that so many people are in favor of it because it’s “anti-Microsoft” and really don’t have any idea what they’re talking about.
True enough, Owen. Although there’s nothing wrong with being “anti-Microsoft.” (Fervent Mac user that I am… ![]()