Computing Reviews
Today's Issue Hot Topics Search Browse Recommended My Account Log In
Review Help
Search
The value of open standards and open-source software in government environments
Simon K. IBM Systems Journal44 (2):227-238,2005.Type:Article
Date Reviewed: Dec 1 2005

In this paper, Simon promises much, but delivers little. The abstract promises that the paper “evaluates the relative strengths of proprietary software and [open source software (OSS)] as development techniques.” The paper provides no data supporting its conclusions, and is one sided in presenting only the “advantages of OSS.” I suggest that readers turn to page 235 for an excellent summary of OSS in government information technology.

The notion that OSS, by itself, provides “significant benefits, namely interoperability, flexibility, and avoidance of vendor lock-in,” is not supported with data, nor do I believe it is necessarily true. Proprietary software, which I think means contracted software, may or may not provide the same benefits. Here are three examples that contradict the premise of the paper: the C libraries that are part of Unix (which are not OSS, yet they pioneered the way to realize these benefits); QuickBooks, a tool that also provides the same benefits; and the rational unified process tool suite.

Any software package that provides a strong application programming interface and is trustworthy and well supported offers the benefits claimed by the author without having to be OSS. I find the claim in the conclusion—that OSS is superior—to be unfounded. Moreover, the claim that modularity is an attribute of all OSS and not of proprietary software (as is implied on page 233) is suspect at best. The notion that governments cannot afford to pay inflated prices for software solutions is not supported with economic analysis. For example, if the cost of producing a software product is 25 percent of the price, yet the payback in terms of savings is ten times the price, one would reasonably conclude that even though the price is “inflated,” the cost-benefit ratio makes the purchase a good investment. The experience of software systems being late and lacking needed features impacts the financial viability of automation far more than the cost of the package—this is my opinion, just as unsupported by data as the ideas in this paper. Someone should revisit this subject, drawing on the work of Laurie Williams of North Carolina State University, and present case studies supporting the conclusion.

Reviewer:  Larry Bernstein Review #: CR132120 (0607-0727)
Bookmark and Share
  Reviewer Selected
Featured Reviewer
 
 
Standards (D.2.0 ... )
 
 
Regulation (K.5.2 ... )
 
 
Software Development (K.6.3 ... )
 
 
Governmental Issues (K.5.2 )
 
 
Software Management (K.6.3 )
 
Would you recommend this review?
yes
no
Other reviews under "Standards": Date
System development standards
Carl J., McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York, NY, 1985. Type: Book (9789780070097247)
Oct 1 1985
Software engineering standards
, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, 1987. Type: Book (9789780471634577)
Apr 1 1989
Software standardization--how the Object Management Group changed the model
Stone C. StandardView 3(3): 85-89, 1995. Type: Article
Nov 1 1996
more...

E-Mail This Printer-Friendly
Send Your Comments
Contact Us
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.   Copyright 1999-2024 ThinkLoud®
Terms of Use
| Privacy Policy