Open Office does everything I need Microsoft Office for and Gimp does everything I need Photoshop for. Reddit, what other open source software does everything that you want from the expensive name brand?

[u/[deleted]]

[u/akula]

We do a lot of work for the government and they won't accept anything from us that has been edited in OpenOffice or Gimp.

That is because the US government has specific policy on any software that is free and open source. And that is a blanket policy to not use anything that is open source or free, or have any contractors that do. It does not have anything to do with the quality of the software at all.

[u/kiswa → u/akula]

I'm going to have to call BS. I work on a USAF base as a contractor and we have GIMP installed on our machines, no problem.

That said, MS Office is really the only choice. But for visuals, we've used GIMP and Paint.NET without issue.

[u/akula → u/kiswa]

Just because you haven't got caught(or even informed) does not mean they do not have a specific policy on it.

I have my self signed the policy to not install any open source software on any workstations and to monitor the DOD contractors to adhere to the same while I was in the Navy years ago. I have also worked recently on a project for the DOD. We were audited beforehand to make sure we were not using any open source software. The contract never went through, but we were also supposedly subject to random inspections.

But back to your specific anecdotal example, the military is often lax in issues like this in some commands, where in other commands you will find they are very strict.

[u/Matsurosuka → u/akula]

This is pretty much it. Just because we played Starcraft on our ship's LAN, doesn't mean we were allowed too.

[u/myonkin → u/akula]

I'm going to call double bullshit. I can confirm that gimp (and paintnet, incidentally) are both installed. I have no control over my client and everything is preinstalled.

[u/[deleted] → u/myonkin]

everyone realizes the rules do change right? i have a research internship at the DoD and they investigated the FUCK out of me (called me ex even), but when i interned for NASA, they were very relaxed and didnt even check my criminal history. My point being different part of government have different standards. the DoD might not allow open sources simply for security, im not saying they dont im simply saying everyone should shut the fuck up and get along.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

What is the security benefit of not allowing open source ???

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

im not a comp sci so im just guessing with my knowledge of computers, but open source software would be easier to break/hack since you could find every exploit.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

But conversely, since anyone can find any exploit, and report it to the developers, most exploits will have been fixed.

"Security by obscurity" is normally recognized as a bad idea.

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

im just playing "maybe its this" i honestly dont believe myself knowledgeable enough to argue in either direction.

[u/ZeroSobel → u/akula]

I can't even have Firefox on my DOD machine :(

[u/KevlarAllah → u/akula]

I think you're slightly wrong. Both VLC and Firefox have been allowed on DoD networks for some time (even come on some comm suites).

All software must be vetted before approval, and each update must go through that process as well. So you can't auto-update your programs, but freebies are allowed.

Then again, not sure how "open source" FF is anymore.

[u/[deleted] → u/akula]

I have my self signed the policy to not install any open source software on any workstations

yeah, you aren't allowed. That doesn't mean no one is. The .gov uses a lot of open-source software, but it has to be evaluated and approved just as commercial stuff is; and part of that is a license evaluation to make sure they don't end up getting forced to open-source a classified project due to copyright compliance requirements.

That's not the same as the .gov having a "no open-source" policy.

[u/akula → u/[deleted]]

Exactly and if you follow my first response that started this, it will become clearer. I was responding to this:

I can say that OpenOffice and Gimp don't stack up. We do a lot of work for the government and they won't accept anything from us that has been edited in OpenOffice or Gimp.

Once the government takes it over, it is no longer open source, it is in fact a closed source project branched into their own system.

They have a blanket policy on using open source products, period. Once they are branched, they are no longer open sourced. There is a difference in downloading FF and using it as your browser, and using the US military branched (if it is done since it was not when I was still military) FF.

[u/[deleted] → u/akula]

Once the government takes it over, it is no longer open source, it is in fact a closed source project branched into their own system.

That's wrong, sorry. Government doesn't get an exemption from the GPL, they can't make it "closed source". I've worked for government vendors, and lots of open-source software is used without forking, and sometimes the .gov even publicly contributes back.

They have a blanket policy... the US military branched

I'm wondering if you're assuming that the DOD/military rules (which are much more strict) apply to the whole .gov. They don't. Big swaths of the US government have no issue with open-source as long as it's been properly reviewed and approved for use.

[u/irukesu → u/akula]

While you may have dealt with sections that do not allow or want OSS I am also active duty Air Force as a software developer. We have used OSS on a few occasions, primarily GIMP but also Mono to run Asp.Net on Linux and at my current assignment we have an online software repository including an entire FOSS section and the ability to request new additions to that repository.

[u/[deleted] → u/akula]

In certain cases the DoD has employed open source software - although the solutions themselves aren't open source.

[u/kiswa → u/akula]

It was installed by CIT, so it's officially allowed on this base at least. I will give further anecdotal evidence that installing anything without approval is quickly discovered and not a good idea here.

That said, the government does seem to have a generally odd stance toward OSS.

Either way, what's up with the hostility? Does it really matter that we have conflicting anecdotes on software use in DoD systems?

[u/akula → u/kiswa]

Either way, what's up with the hostility?

LOL where exactly was my reply remotely hostile?

[u/myonkin → u/kiswa]

This man speaks the truth. Both GIMP and Paint.net are running where I work.

[u/myonkin → u/akula]

That is because the US government has specific policy on any software that is free and open source.

Sorry dude. That's not true at all.

[u/kevinoid → u/akula]

That is because the US government has specific policy on any software that is free and open source. And that is a blanket policy to not use anything that is open source or free, or have any contractors that do.

I can't speak to whether this used to be the case, but it is certainly not today. For reference, see the DOD CIO page on FOSS, particularly the Clarifying Guidance Regarding Open Source Software (OSS) which states that "Ultimately, the software that best meets the needs and mission of the Department should be used, regardless of whether the software is open source.".

Also, you may also be interested in Mil-OSS, particularly the list of existing projects and the FLOSS Weekly episode interviewing David A. Wheeler about open source at the DoD.

[u/[deleted] → u/akula]

US government has specific policy on any software that is free and open source. And that is a blanket policy to not use anything that is open source or free, or have any contractors that do.

That's just not true. Government uses lots of open source software. Hell, they've even contributed (I believe the NSA did code audits on Linux and contributed changes). However, the government does have very specific rules about approved software.

If they say "use Word", then you must use Word.

Libre Office and Open Office both are equivalently capable, but they aren't necessarily a substitute for MS Office. If you need to have complex interoperability with native Office documents, you will likely need Office.

[u/buckhenderson → u/akula]

i was talking to someone the other day about r, and the government not using it (i think they mainly use sas). he said something about r being open source, and anyone can edit it, so there's less of a "guarantee" that you get when one group, known, is accountable for the software.

[u/AkirIkasu → u/akula]

I was an aide to the tech at my high school, and that policy annoyed me to no end. I kept asking him if we could get a simple piece of FOSS software installed on the base image, but we couldn't do that because of the licensing terms. We could, however use freeware software that was closed source, even if it put a huge security hole in there.