The following is quoted from The Linux Journal http://www.linuxjournal.com

“Jefferson said, “The government is best which governs least.”

By committing itself to free software, government keeps citizens’ options open.

As I write this, the Linux Users Group of Iraq is forming an organization called the Iraqi Open Source Organization (IOSO) to help get the new Iraqi government on the path of open-source software and open standards. They’re joining a worldwide movement to put open source into government IT that’s strong enough that proprietary software vendors have founded a lobbying group called the “Initiative for Software Choice” (ISC) to oppose it. The ISC doesn’t merely oppose open-source code; it also tracks and opposes measures that would simply require specs to be openly published for interoperability.

Telling a government it should accept proprietary software licenses is like telling it that it needs to visit a shady rent-to-own store for furniture instead of using competitive bidding. Governments are big enough to get a better deal. And “software choice” for a government purchasing department could mean software lock-in for citizens. Until late last year, the US Federal Communications Commission’s Web-based Universal Licensing System, mandatory for radio licensees, required a non-Linux OS.”

How come in our “Best Value” culture open source solutions aren’t automatically evaluated alongside big propriery products? Some councils won’t even countenance open source solutions.

We hear that there are problems with support. How ironic is that? But I don’t think IT departments who suggest such things realise this.

Why would a council use IIS to serve web pages when estimates say that 80% of websites are served by Apache http://www.apache.org/? Do councils know something that most sysadmins across the world don’t know?

Questions! I would like to hear from councils and government who are using open source and get some idea of their experiences.

What exactly are the main obstacles?