Slashdot Mirror
Korea Replacing 120,000 Windows with Linux
The Korean government has just signed a contract with Hancom to purchase 120,000 copies of HancomLinux Deluxe 2.0 (which is basically Red Hat OS + tweaks + korean language support + KDE localized) and HancomOffice 2.0. Thats quite a big achievement. Here is Hancom's Press Release about it.
This is a major achievement for the free software world. Let's hope that other enlightened governments will do the same, instead of helping support the American monopoly.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Sorry to be such a poopy-pants. (Has anyone heard any more about Mexico's initiatives?)
========================================
Death will come, and will have your eyes
-- Pavese
i wonder if, when a redhat employee reads that, if they feel like they should get a piece of that pie.. or if they all genuinely think "yay, good for them!" i mean 120,000 copies is quite a shot in the arm. open source rules but this must make some people jealous. maybe its just commercialism's power of me :-D
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
When I got my first computer... it was a windows 95 machine (yes, I know, i'm a very late bloomer)... and I learned that thing inside and out to where I just *knew* windows intuitively. When I learned that the entire computer world was not windows... I took my first oppurtunity downloading the slackware disksets. It was more difficult I think, because I was so used to the windows point & click interface. Now I run a combination of BSD/SlackWare/Win2k all intuitively... but I would have rather been introduced to any of the unices as my primary introduction to computers.
As for these Koreans, I think this is a major step in computer education for those new to computers. Those who are not familiar with computers whatsoever will have no problem adapting to Linux, since they know nothing else. When learning any non windows operating system... you get so much of a better feel on how computers actually work. I think it's a great tool to learn, and even as just a user... I've noticed RedHat is great for that purpose.
Me the techie does. Me the consumer does not. In 1995, most major dummy computer stores (where regular consumers get their stuff) offered computers with either OS/2 Warp 3 or Windows 95 preinstalled. Now, it's just Windows.
So while Microsoft has no monopoly in the techie market, they do have one in the thousand times larger real consumer market.
hey folks, aren't there still two Korea's?
Linux is definitely much more of a "do it yourself" system than Windows is. That's viewed as a liability by most corporations in the US, but it's an advantage where skilled labor is cheap.
There's a parallel in the construction industry. In US, labor is more expensive in comparison to construction materials than in, say, Mexico. In the US, construction uses as many prefabricated, pre-assembled components as possible in order to minimize on-site labor. It's cost effective to manufacture, stock and transport a large variety of pre-fab parts to minimize on-site assembly. In contrast, where labor is cheap in comparison to materials, you find that it's more common to bring raw-materials on-site and create what you need from them, since it's cheaper to pay a skilled laborer to do it as-needed rather.
The same thing applies to software. It does suprise me that countries like Korea and China like Linux where having skilled on-site talent is more cost-effective than paying large license fees to MS.
It depends on your goal. If you want 100 percent scores on the FSF Purity Test from everyone who encounters or uses any OS/FS, then you're correct.
If your goal is to give as many people as possible a taste and gentle introduction to OS/FS because you reason that "you catch more people with honey than with vinegar", then you should support this move.
I think the second approach will make for more people using OS/FS in the long run, simply because more of them will be exposed to it.
Sure, they're using a proprietary program on top of an OS/FS system, but it's better than a proprietary system on top of a proprietary OS.
The world will be a better place when nongeeks at least know about OS/FS so they can decide if they want to use it or not. Beating someone over the head doesn't work unless that person is already one of the converted.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
This is NOT what Linux needs
Oh? And what does Linux need? Only open source programs that are free? Are you saying that people can't make an honest living programming and selling their closed source software? I agree that it sucks that it uses a closed file format, but that's the way it works sometimes. With any luck maybe that format will be opened some day. Does it matter though? They can't be worse than Microsoft who makes it a point to constantly change their formats mainly just to screw everyone else.
Realistically I think you might be comming at this from the wrong angle (as many of us tend to do). What does Linux need? Who cares? They didn't purchase those licences because they neede Linux, they purchaced it because they needed superior software that did what they wanted it to. If Hancom makes a better product and they sell it, then more power to them. I'd like to see more corporations drop their closed source ways too, but right now that's not going to happen, and unless some of these companies start making things for Linux, Linux will be sitting in obscurity for quite some time. If open source alternatives are going to take over, then they must be better products - and unfortunatly right now Star/K office only get "close but no cigar". Right now open source is only making strides because of those products which truley are better, like Apache. Closed source isn't all that great, but right now Linux could probably use a small crutch like this. I mean really, what's the alternative: use MS Office on Windows like every other goverment...
How about paying for 1 copy (or, say, 10) and copying it to all the machines that need it?
The excess money can go to pay for a real service, like to employ free software programmers.
I'd like to see more corporations drop their closed source ways too, but right now that's not going to happen, and unless some of these companies start making things for Linux, Linux will be sitting in obscurity for quite some time. If open source alternatives are going to take over, then they must be better products - and unfortunatly right now Star/K office only get "close but no cigar". Right now open source is only making strides because of those products which truley are better, like Apache. Closed source isn't all that great, but right now Linux could probably use a small crutch like this.
This is the very mentality that is holding Open Source back from total domination. It is the view that free software can only be produced outside of business because there's no money in it. Therefore, as the thinking goes, proprietary software is ok because it produces solutions that people need right now, while free software must wait for volunteers to make slow, steady progress.
The reality is that customers will pay for whatever solution is cheapest and does the best job--whether they are paying for licenses or the labor of free software programmers. It is the fault of Open Source developers for not capitalizing on this to provide themselves an income and allow them to work on their pet projects full-time. There's no need for proprietary licenses whatsoever in this model. Consider this scenario:
Business customer needs software solution X, to be rolled out in 6 months.
Seller A will provide X by means of licenses for $2 million, plus extra for priority support services as needed. New versions of X with cost future licenses fees. Customizations will also cost extra.
Seller B will provide X by negotiating a contract for a complete solution: provision of all software, support services, and desired customizations, for $1.5 million. All new versions of X are free. Seller B ensures that customer's needs are met precisely and in time for the rollout date. Customer is treated as a peer in the development cycle, resulting in more personal service and higher quality software.
A is proprietary solution provider, B is Open Source. The choice is obvious, given that geeks will get off their respective arses and bring B into fruitful existance instead of moping around complaining that there's no money in free software blah blah blah.