I’m interested in this particular statement:

The government ought to mandate open source products based on open source reference implementations to improve security, get higher quality software, lower costs, higher reliability – all the benefits that come with open software.

I’m not sure a govt mandate would be as effective in this situation.  Countless IT bosses and system admins fiercely guard Microsoft-based servers and programs as non-negotiable.  These folks have never really TRIED considering open source platforms and so would be put in a very uncomfortable, unwelcome position.

However…

Earlier today I came across this Top 5 Digg Tech story:

Being Anti-Linux is bad for your business’ health

It would seem the latest Microsoft layoffs have spooked some and have caused others to really re-think their long term IT strategies.

My verdict is that open source has been gaining a lot of ground this decade – from the massive growth of Firefox to the adoption of platforms like WordPress and programs like Open Office.  The quality of open source product has grown to equal the enterprise level, and the enormous security concerns have continued to thaw.  The 2 biggest wins for open source are A. the cost (free) and B. the updates and scalability of the products (frequent and infinite).  IT departments are not immune to budget reductions, and the current economic climate may be the right catalyst to legitimize open solutions.

However, forcing these technologies upon institutions is NOT beneficial in the long run.  Open source as a movement has gained incredibly loyal fans due to its organic and viral growth – not a government mandate. With the proper encouragement and incentives, 2009 may be the year we see open source programs and platforms finally become a legitimate solution for America.