Slashdot Mirror
German Parliament Considers Linux
daramannen writes ""The committee is examining whether switching the Bundestag's more than 5,000 computers to open source would improve stability and security, as well as save money, Schroer said. By the committee's estimate, implementing open source software throughout the federal government could result in savings of 250 million marks (US$116 million)." "
I don't think using Microsoft products is an option for them... They aren't on very good terms to begin with (since their dispute over Microsoft's EULA).
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
I think that it is great that foreign governments are considering Linux seriously. It makes it harder for legislation in America, such as the SSSCA to kill the OS and makes it more likely to succeed in the long run.
And it will probably save them a bundle of money for as long as they get decent support contracts or have the people in house. This will be a great thing for SuSE...
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
It is a good thing that they consider this, but can you see this happening?
.doc documents as they were shown in someone else's Word 2K (with correct table dimenstions, bullets, idents and images), it would make people laugh hard at them. If they give a Linux desktop solution a try, Bundestag staff will probably make Linux go away again because they will get many problems they didn't have before.
If the Bundestag administration is not able to print
They won't do it, I say. They'll buy WinXP. Maybe they are just trying to get a good price for it.
Consider the history of government computing, They still run old mainfraimes because of the software they built decades ago, Tax and voting software is still running on hardware fom the 1970's and 1980's. Why? because re-writing something that works is economically dumb. Plus they have the source code so if a modification is needed, hire a programmer or use the in-house programmer to change it, no vendor needed, no more "at the mercy" of other companies. you can impliment changes and new projects in-house without having to spend another $2.9 million in order to upgrade the OS again.
Linux has that advantage... The source code, and you OWN it. Hey, I have linux and noone can take it away from me,
Linus cant stand up and say "everyone with the last name that starts with A can no longer run linux" like microsoft can, or IBM can or Apple can, or SCO, etc....
This isnt about the software, it's about the licesnes' The german govt cant tell everyone to "go to hell in a handbasket" if they use a open source system. Noone can sue them for contract breach, charge them millions for illegal search and seizure (Microsoft audit) or be blackmailed (Microsoft audit)
Any company or Government that has any brains would see that geting out from under the control of another entity will save thousands and even millions. and hiring Linux guru's at a paltry $60K USD each saves even more money.
as for user training... XP is coming out and will require the SAME amount of training... so that point is only typical Microsoft FUD.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
If the buying public continues to blindly lick the boots of MS, while governments move to *nix (for the desktop) solutions due to costs (and as well they should .. I prefer my taxes going to something like social programs rather than MS), they might just find themselves aligned with *nix geeks. Who else thinks governments would find themselves in a very good spot if they became a main source of employment for OS and *nix pundits? I don't want the tech infrastructure of my government to depend on MS's marketing strategies rather than actual need and opportunity for IS improvement.
"Old man yells at systemd"
This is how a successful switch to Linux could be accomplished. It's hard for 3 people in an organisation of 100 people to switch to Linux and live comfortably. But if the entire government switches to Linux, there won't be any issues with doc/data compatibility. And their support network will find it much earier to support Linux if it's the only desktop/server platform. I hope this works out on this large of a scale. Maybe it really will get Microsoft's attention.
Unfortunately they have reached desktop maturity and the shareholders will not accept a reduction in revenue growth.
I hope they keep their eyes closed for another year then Linux on the desktop will be a new reality and much harder to combat.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
You misread the article... The discussion was about replacing the 5000 seats in the Bundestag (approx. house of representatives); the $116 million figure was the projected savings if the entire federal government were to switch.
:)
It'd be a remarkably efficient federal government to need just 5000 desktops...
/Janne
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
I'm a bit curious as to how they're going to save all that money. If they just stop using whatever software they already have paid for, will they get a refund? Or do they spend huge amounts of money each year on licenses, and that figure represents the savings over several years?
The article mentions that.
They currently use NT. In a year (or so) MS will stop supporting NT, so they'll have to go with XP, or switch to Linux. (You can't have government computers running an unsupported proprietary OS - someone creates the next NIMDA, and there is no way to patch the hole.)
The cost savings mentioned are projected across the entire federal government, (presumably) for MS licenses.
Technologically speaking, we're the cream of the digital era crop. However, when you get into laws, policies, and general perception, the United States seems to be getting more and more short sighted. Corporate interests and "the bottom line" have more influence than what's best for the industry and the people.
That one misguided law has opened the door for more just like it, and no one seems willing to stand in the doorway to stop it. The governement shouldn't be influenced by companies, it should be influenced by people. Companies should be doing what's right for their customers, not what's right for their checkbooks and customers be damned. However, both groups have been acting like they forgot that in the end they answer to us the consumers and citizens. We make them, and we can break them if there's enough of us.
Until we actually stand up and quit letting the corporations buy laws that screw our rights, we are going to be behind and we're going to stay behind. You're right, we made the digital era. We're also in danger of watching it pass us by.
Electronic Frontier Foundation for online civil rights information
Proprietary software requires that one company absorb all the R&D costs and then distribute that cost on to their customers.
Actualy, for Microsoft, the biggest cost is Marketing. You want to read this article and learn about the cost of launching WindowsXP ($1 billion!!!!!!).
Have in mind that WindowsXp has no real new features. Just some outrageous theme ontop of Windows2000 core and then some code merginf from the WindowsME tree. Really.
I would like to think that Microsoft will come to it's senses and reevaluate it's licensing policies, but you have to remember the main driving force behind Microsoft's greed and avarice.
Microsoft is not self-destructive or blind with arrogance. They are just screwed by their own success. The sins of the past have come to haunt them, Microsoft has a hell of a lot of shareholders that depend on them to maintain to some degree of the same meteoric levels of growth and prosperity that they have enjoyed in the past. We all know how dirty Microsoft has been in the last fifteen years and that evil business model propelled them to the most important tech stock in most people's portfolio. The reason that they are fighting so hard to be allowed to maintain these bullshit business models is that they need them to survive. Lets laugh together at the notion of Office's success if it was denied access to the OS division (and visa versa to some degree).
So now it's 2001 and what do they have? They have an oversaturated market, there is almost no compelling reason for any offices to upgrade Office, there are scant reasons to upgrade to Microsoft XP. Microsoft is banging it's head into every area it can find (ie. Xbox, PocketPC, DirectTV, etc etc...) trying to build new revenue models, but at this point the money is not coming in yet.
When I found myself explaining to my brother the other day (a longtime Microsoft shareholder) how the OfficeXP and WindowsXP EULA worked his response was, "why the hell are they nickel and dimeing now?".
He understood that there is a huge difference between the guy that installs WindowsXP on both his desktop and his laptop and the huge duplicating plant in Malaysia that is duping knockoffs replete with holograms at 100,000 units per day.
My response was that I am starting to think they have to.
Have a look at StarOffice 6 beta. I'm having no issues at all moving .doc documents between it and MS Word 97 and MS Word 2000. My company IT department is currently taking a serious look at StarOffice as a drop in replacement for Microsoft Office. It really is a lovely piece of work.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
But the converse is also true. Migrating to Windows is pretty difficult for users who have grown accustomed to the speed and ease of Unix.
Paraphrase: people who have invested years in learning to use Windows, are able to use Windows on day 1.
It all comes down to what you're used to running. And if you're a brand new unindoctrinated user, all platforms are roughly the same.
Windows' only advantage is that, right now, more of the population knows it. But remember that when you get out of USA, the population is more heterogenious, and that advantage is less pronounced. And even if you only get to pocket $106M of that $116M the first year (spending $10M to teach people to click on the footprint icon instead of the word "start"), that's a one-shot expense. You save every year thereafter.
Well, the longer they wait to upgrade, the more it will cost. And the sooner they stop storing things in hostage formats, the sooner they'll arrive in a state where they never have to worry about those kinds of problems again.
> If they get linux from redhat the money is going to an US firm.
m l
And if they buy it (and support) from SuSE, it doesn't.
http://www.suse.de/de/services/support/index.ht
rant
Gov't jobs don't really add anything to the economy, though. Gov't money comes from taxpayers, so more gov't jobs means more drag on the private sector that is actually producing something. Gov't is a necessary evil, and should be no larger than necessary. The private sector can usually do the same job better, cheaper, and faster.
Constitutionally Correct
So you don't think that the ability of the post office to deliver your bills and payments
helps the economy?
The private sector is not even interested in carrying letters.
Even if you do your ordering and bill payment online,
the highways and roads that the government
builds and maintains help companies deliver
the goods you ordered.
And if you think that the private sector is usually better, cheaper, faster, then you have not worked
for a large corporation.
How many industries would not even exist if there was no public investment in infrastructure.
That goes for roads and for the Internet as well.
"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
Beyond simply comparing financial outlays between the MS and open source alternatives, a highly relevant factor for governements is WHERE that money is spent.
Each $ spent locally has say 25cents recuperated in taxes, of the remaining 75 cents, it is likely spent on something else that generates 25% taxes and so on, and so on. Some of the money leaks out of the govt controlled economy, but most of it doesn't. A $ spent on imports is gone foreever.
For international governments, each $ they spend on MS licenses is probably worth $3-$5 spent locally.
I expect Germany to go through with the linux conversion.
The private sector can usually do the same job better, cheaper, and faster.
Now is a peculiar time to be making this assertion.
One need only look at the issue of airport security before 9/11 for an example of how delivering services at a low cost is not a relevant consideration.
Apologists for corporate efficiency simply slough off the recent dotcom debacle as the price one pays for a free market.
Government certainly has failures but all organizations do. Bankruptcy is endemic in small businesses. Virtually none of the original Dow Jones 30 companies, the strongest companies in the economy, are still in business.
The idea that corporations deliver services better than government is mostly a product of selective use of evidence, bad cost accounting and corporate propaganda.
I think this is a darn good incentive for airlines to listen to consumer demand and start providing better security in order to regain business!
The free market system you described failed completely. The reason it failed is because it was skewed toward providing services at a low price rather than providing services consumers deserved. That problem is inherent in the free market. Inevitably, private security agencies are going to provide the least service they can get away with.
The only way to adjust the system is through government regulation with government inspectors or by the government taking it over. Notice that it may be more expensive but cost of delivery is not the issue.
You need a system similar to the National Transportation Safety Board that enforces airline maintenance regulations. Under this system, you don't wait for airplanes to crash before checking their maintenance records and auditing their procedures.
If enough people demanded a safety feature in their car...
Once again, you are describing a free market mechanism that doesn't always work. Every safety feature in a car from padded dashboards to air bags have been mandated by law and over the objections of auto industry lobbiest. Tens of thousands of people died from poorly designed cars while you were waiting for the free market to work its magic. Much better to just pass the safety legislation and save the lives.
People can legitimately make their demands known through their elected representatives as well as through their buying habits.
The free market has it virtues but it also has its limits. Government has a role to play when the free market fails and it fails often.
I really cant imagine Microsoft being dumb enough to try anything that could be interpreted as lobbying or even pressure. They would have little to gain but quite a bit to loose with such a move. You are right noting that the whole thing is only under consideration. But if it really goes through the last thing MS wants, is making a lot of fuss about it. Would mean press for them, little else.
As bad as it is to live with an economy that can be easily trashed by 5 million idiots...
I don't think the economy was trashed by the idiots, although a segment of the stock market took a beating. The dotcom debacle merely points out that the free market system has glaring deficiencies and cannot claim to be wiser than government agencies in every instance.
When someone in the private sector wastes his company's or his investors' money, he doesn't usually get the chance to repeat the process.
On the contrary, he usually gets the chance to repeat the process.
Case in point is the chief financial officer of Nortel Networks succeeding the president of Nortel after overseeing the largest corporate losses in history.
Furthermore, the board of directors of corporations remains constant from one disaster to the next. The CEO often takes the fall but he's provided with a handsome severance package despite the company's dismal results.
If a failed corporate executive doesn't get a second chance, it's because he doesn't need the work.