The recent heated discussion between the Ministry of State Administration on one hand and non-government organisations and IT experts on the other highlighted many questions. The decision by the ministry to use and pay more than $51 million  to Microsoft was questioned. Critics of this idea indicated that the decision to purchase licenses from Microsoft was not justified since it was possible for the state administration of use free software like Open Source and save millions of leva.

The ministry argued that the contracts had already been signed and there was nothing that could be done. The one positive thing was that it was understood that no further obligations would be undertaken and that the ministry would think about the use of open code if, in subsequent years, it was proven that it was possible to use such resources within the structure of the government administration. The opponents of using open source software claimed that its use would put the administration under greater risk and that such reform was not possible given the large number of structures and people involved. However, this may not be true. In a number of countries around the world separate agencies, ministries and municipalities are using open source operating systems and software.

According to Vladimir Petkov and Elenko Elenkov, authors of the book  Open Book for Free Software, the German parliament took a decision to migrate towards operating systems that used open code at the beginning of 2002 because it wanted to remain independent from a single supplier and the subsequent lack of transparency, security and compatibility. The German armed forces forbade the use of Microsoft products in its structures due to actual, and suspicion about, possible problems with security. When Mexico announced that a migration of the education system was being planned to Linux, Microsoft reacted immediately with a lot of free software, several free computers, a little bit of free technical support and a bit of entertainment for the representative of the Mexican authorities. The migration towards Linux was delayed, but not for long.

In France, government agency ATICA has supported the use of open software in the French public sector. In a special report to the French prime minister, the agency provided an action plan and the requirements for open standards. One of the six priorities was the use of open software in the public administration. Denmark installed StarOffice in its education system, and in addition the program was installed in the homes of students. In Spain, the senate, the council for nuclear security, the interior ministry and the justice ministry have used server applications with open code. These examples, however, are only about separate public structures.

Next year, for the first time, the entire administration of a European country will use open code software. From January 1 2008, Danish public administration and offices are required to use open standards for software. This was a result of lengthy negotiations and an agreement between the Danish central government, local municipalities and the Association of the Danish Regions. Denmark will become the first country to introduce the mandatory use of open standards on a national, regional and local level. The use of open standards is expected to increase competition on the software market, since the suppliers will not be able to protect their market position (as it is in Bulgaria at present). The increased competition will reduce the prices of the products and services. This is a small part of the expected positive results.

Open standards allow interactions between different systems, solutions and organisations. In other words, each administration could use different software according to the specification of its activities and the possibility for negotiating lower prices with the various providers. This could save enormous amounts of money and time and is a very effective way to improve the compatibility of the public administration on the level of communications and exchange of data. This by itself has a result, the improvement of the effectiveness of the public sector and guarantees a continuous flow of information from one system into another.

Not least, in this way the people and companies will have easier communications with the administration at lower costs.

During the discussion, surprisingly, the minister shared two arguments against using open source software, which did not sound logical. He said that it was possible that the people working in the administration may not like software with open code and that was a reason not to use it. However, since it is our money that is spent, and which could be saved, this should not be a reason. Bearing in mind the enormous positive effects from better communications within the administration, we argue that the software is not very different from that being used at present (quite the opposite), nor should such an argument justify spending budget funds. To avoid negative attitudes it will be necessary to train the administration, but this would be a relatively small initial cost, which would be compensated many times over from the positive effects. This is also an opportunity for government employees to improve their computer literacy. It is usual that the training only takes couple of days and the users get accustomed to the new software within a month.

The other argument of the minister was that he did not know this software and for that reason he had not questioned the contract with Microsoft. Yes, it is probably not the job of a minister to know, but he must have experts who must search for the best solution. As it is known - the lack of knowledge is not an excuse. Particularly for a ministry.