[TriLUG] mostly OT: Tech Lobbyist

[Danielle via TriLUG]

It's also new to the organization, which is an entirely different set 
of risks, even if it isn't new to the individuals who will be performing 
the implementation. This isn't exclusively an issue of FOSS as 
converting from one proprietary solution to another has the same risks; 
this more drives the impetus to not change from what is already 
installed.

While it appears counter intuitive to us to have such concerns about 
going over the budget maximum while not being concerned that far cheaper 
but equally capable solutions could be implemented, it is consistent 
within the system: the issue is far less spending the money - that it 
costs more isn't really a concern from what I could see - but accurate 
prediction of what resources are required and not exceeding them. And, 
as I said, this isn't just money: it's about deadlines, too. In fact, my 
take was that going over the monetary budget, while definitely 
considered to be bad, was viewed as less bad than being beyond the 
deadline.

FOSS projects did exist and I had a few in my time there. I came to 
loath being assigned them as they were typically allocated no resources 
beyond my own work-hours and servers to run it, and the deadlines were 
unreasonably short. More than once I heard, "well, it's free software, 
so we're assuming the time needed to install and configure an Apache 
webserver [by an experienced sysadmin] is the appropriate estimate" 
regardless of what the actual solution was; the assumption was that any 
FOSS software was trivial to install and run. That a number of FOSS 
projects ran over deadline was the predictable result. I can't offer 
much about how the deadlines were actually established as every time 
that was decided before I was involved in the project in any way (in my 
most long-running example, I may have neither been an employee nor 
resident of the state yet when that decision was made.) My speculation 
is that there wasn't a vendor whose involvement and input at that stage 
was unavoidable was material to this problem.

We can argue that those proprietary solutions are riskier for a lot of 
technical reasons but that isn't the language of the people who need to 
be persuaded. So long as we keep arguing that rather than strictly 
speaking to them with the language and arguments that they will 
understand we will lose.

I want to be completely clear: I'm not at all a supporter of what I 
list above. It is a major part of the reason I went to corporate 
employment several years ago after fifteen years of working for 
government and universities. While employed by a university in 
Pennsylvania I advocated Linux as an enterprise solution, and even 
implemented a DHCP server to greatly speed reimaging of lab machines 
(used a discarded 486 box and RH 5.0.) For doing so from 1996 through 
about 2005 I was viewed as a loose cannon; a reputation that I did not 
shed in my last few years there even though they embraced Linux and 
other FOSS solutions. I had made the mistake and it meant the end of my 
career progress there (I was subsequently passed over for senior system 
administrator for someone far newer; a very clear signal that it was 
time for me to move on.)

Regards,
Danielle

On 2015-09-25 09:16, Tim Jowers via TriLUG wrote:
> That's a good point Steve. I sometimes wonder if a large contract to 
> add
> spyware as in winblows would be enough to fund a distro into becoming 
> #1. I
> really wonder if RedHat has been forced to go this road as well. I'm 
> sure
> everyone knows about the "emergency" features in mobile devices etc.
>
> Hi Danielle,
>
>   Certainly I view Windows as more risky. :-)  But I get your point.
> Certainly doing something new to oneself is considered risky. It is 
> ironic
> to hear someone say they are concerned with budgets but they also 
> spend
> millions (tens of millions, hundreds of millions?) on products which 
> have
> much cheaper equivalents.
>
> Thanks,
> Tim
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Steve Litt via TriLUG 
> <trilug at trilug.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 11:15:58 -0400
>> Tim Jowers via TriLUG <trilug at trilug.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Is there any Lobbyist representing tech?  E.g. by now there is 
>> zero
>> > technical reason all government systems have not moved to Linux.
>>
>>
>> > Clearly, we need representation. Would you pay $100/year to fund 
>> your
>> > own Tech Lobbyist?  Would your company pay $1,000 or more? I'm 
>> sure
>> > many would. The Internet "Geographic Monopoly" is one obvious 
>> example
>> > of lobbying and lack of a Tech Lobbyist.
>>
>> I'd be careful what you wish for. With Linux under the radar, at 
>> least
>> the government doesn't interfere with Linux. Imagine if this 
>> lobbyist
>> favored legislation to help one or a few distros, and eliminate all 
>> the
>> rest. There goes your choice.
>>
>> SteveT
>>
>> Steve Litt
>> August 2015 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts
>> http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust
>> --
>> This message was sent to: timjowers <timjowers at gmail.com>
>> To unsubscribe, send a blank message to trilug-leave at trilug.org from 
>> that
>> address.
>> TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
>> Unsubscribe or edit options on the web  :
>> http://www.trilug.org/mailman/options/trilug/timjowers%40gmail.com
>> Welcome to TriLUG: http://trilug.org/welcome
>>

-- 
Danielle at whitrel.com
http://danielle-white.info/