Mandating incompetence?

UPDATED with this prelude:

Sigh....Whenever Dave or I post anything (on the InfoWorld version of this blog) that requires people to read a post completely, or think it through, we tend to get the opposite. I'm not sure how it became controversial to say, "Governments shouldn't mandate using software that doesn't work." But if you read the comments here and on the InfoWorld site, there are apparently some who are so committed to the idea of open source that they're willing to sacrifice the reality of some of its poorly fed projects.

Yes, there are many excellent open source projects. I work for one of them. No, not all open source works, just as not all closed source software works. But then, I wouldn't mandate that anyone use that, either. Will people please read the posting all the way through? And to the extent that they don't agree, will they please write thoughtful responses (like Eben's)? And if they're going to throw mud, will they please use their real names, rather than hiding behind false emails and false names? It's hard to have an intelligent discussion with ad hominems and rebuttals that don't actually address the issues I raised.

My concern, as you'll see below, is rather uncontroversial: it's fine for governments to prefer open source. I can appreciate why, and have made my entire career working for open source companies, starting open source conferences, writing open source articles, and generally promoting open source. But I would never presume to force someone to use it. And I especially wouldn't advocate the use of a particular project that was rubbish simply because it's governed by an open source license. That strikes me as folly. If there's not a good substitute for a closed-source product, why should a government not use the code that actually works? Why would we manacle it to a principle that might not actually serve its citizens well?

So, yes, I'm all for the rise of open source. I feel like I've spent my career making that happen. But I don't believe in forcing the issue - open source will win because (or when, on a project-by-project basis) it's better, and not because it's forced on people. I have four kids - I know from experience that force is a very poor mechanism for making things happen. Much better to create exceptional software than to try to issue a blanket mandate to use open source...when some of the projects that would replace closed-source softare are nowhere near maturity/comparability. Many are. Many are better. But not all.


And now, the original post:

I'm a little worried by the furor over open source within governments. In particular, there is a large government agency (not in the US, though we work with those, too) that is considering Alfresco but might not be able to...not because of Alfresco, but because we use Sun's closed-source JRE. This government has mandated a move to 100% open source over a limited time period.

Sounds great, right? Use the taxpayers' money for open software that no vendor controls, keeping the government out of the greedy paws of self-serving capitalists.

The problem, however, is that open source is not always a good replacement for closed-source software. What should this customer use in place of JRE? Apache Harmony is about the only thing that comes to mind, and it's still a new project that likely wouldn't be a good fit for multiple, massive government agencies.

So when does reason enter into this discussion? In many instances, it doesn't. In Peru, the congress specifies "information autonomy" (whatever that means) and a mandate for open source. (I've complained about the bill here.) In Venezuela, it's much the same (though I suspect they're not going to throw out SAP any time soon...). Around the world, the trend is toward openness in government (even here in the US, as Massachusetts tried to show with the ill-fated ODF.

It's one thing to mandate choice. It's quite another to mandate A choice. In the case of many of these government initiatives, they're not really opening up choice, but rather opting for another closed decision. I don't like to be forced into anything, even free/open source software.

It sort of sounds hippie-ish, in a way. We take off all our clothes and revel in our freedom. But at the end of the day, we're just naked. In the case of these governments, "naked" may mean they're stuck for years with sub-standard software because they've forced themselves into it.

I've made a career in open source. I love open source software, and think Alfresco, for one, is better than any of its proprietary competitors. But that's just one application. There's no question that many open source projects are better than their closed-source counterparts, but there are still missing pieces. What about this government that needs an open JRE? They're out of luck.