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 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
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.
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.
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.
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.