White House Now Uses Same Open Source Platform CampaignFoundations.com Uses to Host your Campaign Website
http://www.campaignfoundations.com/node/159

His administration may have displaced US troops in Iraq with taxpayer paid mercenaries, escalated the war in Afghanistan, distributed a trillion dollars in corporate welfare to the banksters out of the public purse and sold out 'hope and change' voters seeking affordable access to health care to pad the profits of the insurance industry which denies us the health care recommended by our doctors.

But today the Obama administration made one intelligent choice we think Greens can support. They moved whitehouse.gov to an open source application licensed under the Gnu Public License. In fact the administration's primary public face is now hosted on the same open source content management platform which is used to serve the campaign websites of Green candidates hosted by CampaignFoundations.com. For the details, see today's AP article on the subject.

White House opens Web site programming to public
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_web_site

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer
Sat Oct 24, 3:37 pm ET

WASHINGTON – A programming overhaul of the White House's Web site has set the tech world abuzz. For low-techies, it's a snooze — you won't notice a thing.

The online-savvy administration on Saturday switched to open-source code for http://www.whitehouse.gov — meaning the programming language is written in public view, available for public use and able for people to edit.

"We now have a technology platform to get more and more voices on the site," White House new media director Macon Phillips told The Associated Press hours before the new site went live on Saturday. "This is state-of-the-art technology and the government is a participant in it."

White House officials described the change as similar to rebuilding the foundation of a building without changing the street-level appearance of the facade. It was expected to make the White House site more secure — and the same could be true for other administration sites in the future.

"Security is fundamentally built into the development process because the community is made up of people from all across the world, and they look at the source code from the very start of the process until it's deployed and after," said Terri Molini of Open Source for America, an interest group that has pushed for more such programs.

Having the public write code may seem like a security risk, but it's just the opposite, experts inside and outside the government argued. Because programmers collaborate to find errors or opportunities to exploit Web code, the final product is therefore more secure.

For instance, instead of a dozen administration programmers trying to find errors, thousands of programmers online constantly are refining the programs and finding potential pitfalls.

It will be a much faster way to change the programming behind the Web site. When the model was owned solely by the government, federal contractors would have to work through the reams of code to troubleshoot it or upgrade it. Now, it can be done in the matter of days and free to taxpayers.

Obama's team, which harnessed the Web to win an electoral landslide in 2008 and raise millions, has been working toward the shift since it took office Jan. 20 with a White House site based on technology purchased at the end of President George W. Bush's administration.

It didn't let the tech-savvy Obama team build the new online platform it wanted. For instance, 60,000 watched Obama speech to a joint session of Congress on health care. One-third of those stayed online to talk with administration officials about the speech. But there are limits; the programming used to power that was built for Facebook, the popular social networking Web site.

"We want to improve the tools used by thousands of people who come to WhiteHouse.gov to engage with White House officials, and each other, in meaningful ways," Phillips said.

It's also a nod to Obama's pledge to make government more open and transparent. Aides joked that it doesn't get more transparent than showing the world a code that their Web site is based on.

Under the open-source model, thousands of people pick it apart simultaneously and increase security. It comes more cheaply than computer coding designed for a single client, such as the Executive Office of the President. It gives programmers around the world a chance to offer upgrades, additions or tweaks to existing programs that the White House could — or could not — include in daily updates.

Yet the system — known as Drupal — alone won't make it more secure on its own, cautioned Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology.

"The platform that they're moving to is just something to hang other things on," he said. "They need to keep up-to-date with the latest security patches."

Comments

Cayenne’s picture

Cool! Me an' Barak use Drupal. Let's hope we see some participation in the forums.

Where will this all end? Can we vote using webforms? Pay taxes using Ubercart? Declare national holidays using Date and Calendar?

Maybe we can use wiki stuff to create new legislation. Actually, that not may be a bad idea.

:)

Dane Powell’s picture

This is NOT a political forum - you have every right to express your opinions, but a "News and announcements" forum is not the place to do it. You could very easily tarnish Drupal's reputation and scare off potential users. Please think about the possible consequences of your actions (and how you might be embarrassing yourself and your community) before shooting your mouth off next time.

JohnForsythe’s picture

It's hard to imagine a better endorsement. If it's good enough to run the White House, it's good enough for anyone.

gthing’s picture

I would love to see a case study on their use of Drupal. I checked /admin and /user to see if the URLs were accessible and both return a 404. I'd love to see what modules they used, why they used them, and what extra precautions they took for security.

The only thing I see going wrong here is the site getting hacked and giving Drupal a bad name. It will be the first thing targeted with each exploit that comes out.

jyg’s picture

Great news! And Drupal could not ask for a better endorsement.

(It would be even better if the original poster avoided giving his/her personal political commentary)

m.rademacher’s picture

...including at least one writer on Slate.com: http://www.slate.com/id/2233719/ [slate.com], entitled "Message Error - Why running the White House Web site on Drupal is a political disaster waiting to happen"

Well, can we treat this as a list of features to add?

VM’s picture

what the author fails to state:

Drupal knows best:
javascript can be put into the body of content. One just has to use the correct input format to add javascript to the body of a piece of content and this input format is part of core. It is correct that here is no check in place for editors of nodes to know somene else is editing and their changes won't save. However, the checkout.module in contrib can do take care of that.

Drupal is impenetrable:
Fast food mentality. I want it my way and I want it now without reading/learning/ or doing much to get it. Just add a few drops of water and a few clicks of a button and have an exact duplicate of what you've envisioned your website to be. I'm sorry, is there another script in the OS marketplace or proprietary marketplace that doesn't require some reading/learning?

Drupal hates change:
And how many successful updates/upgrades have there been? Many. With referece to the upgrade failure ranted about in the link provided. I don't recall there being an update that needed to be run on the databse but I could be wrong. I upgraded 6 sites in 40 minutes when 6.14 was released. Though admittedly none of them were anywhere near 35,000 nodes.

Drupal is disorganized:
The link the author uses points to file management, which has nothing to do with his point about editing content. Staying with file management since that is what the author linked to, in that link 3 comments down, the developer of the media module explains where the gaps will be filed in file management with the relaease of the media module. With reference to the content list rant, The link the author provides about the content list, points to a thread where it discusses use of a module that allows what core doesn't out of the box.

Drupal is righteous:
ABSOLUTELY!

The shame of rants like the one on slate is that the author doesn't take the time to even try and recognize how far drupal has come. Install Drupal 4.6.x and take it for a ride then install Drupal 7.x and take it for a ride. Considering the limited number of people who are donating their time to work on this project for the benefit of everyone who use it ... I think they've already come a long way.

Drupal doesn't come bunbled with every possible bell and whistle imaginable. For every user who wants a specific feature there is another user who doesn't want it. For every user who wants something enabled by default there is another who doesn't want it enabled by default. That said, there are many contributed modules in the downloads area that solve many issues core doesn't handle on its own yet. Maybe in time, as these contrib modules mature, they will be added to core, as CCK and other modules have been.

Drupal isn't for everyone or for every site. To date there isn't one script that suits all purposes or all desires.

ludo1960’s picture

Well said!

Thanks to all who contibute to the Drupal Community!

Shame on the ranters!

BrainSlugs83’s picture

Nothing he said regarding the current administration was untrue. After rereading it several times I don't even see the hint of opinion. He can't embarrass himself by reporting factual information which is completely relevant* to the article and then following it up with a light hearted joke. >.<

*The current administration has done some really bad things, but they've also done some good things to: Like adopt Drupal for their public facing web portal.