Campaign for Free Software in the Bundestag

mpawlo writes: "According to Swedish IDG.se, the president of Microsoft Germany is outraged over the Bundestux campaign. The campaign aims to put Linux in the Bundestag (German Parliament). He has sent a letter to the campaign workers - some of them members of the German parliament - stating that Microsoft is not a threat to democratic values (as argued by the campaign). Kurt Sibold also states that the only thing achieved through the campaign is a public slander of Microsoft." Also reported by the Register, if you prefer English.

Comments

Poor bill

[lexcyber]

He is loosing the war on software. As the years go.

I think apple should port Mac OS X to x86. That would be cool.

I hope the swedish gov. will do the same.
Eventualy , move away from MS. Unless they
prove themself beeing better but I doubt they
will change into a more useroriented
businessmodel. They are used to the money.
But one day it will be gone.

Every government....

[MrBandersnatch]

should be using open source software. Yeah Germany. Apart from the fact that open source software IS of good enough quality now to be practicle to use and deploy it would save the tax payer MILLIONS of (£$E) every year, create a host of jobs AND improve the very software that was being deployed.

Time to hassle my MP ;)

Re:Every government....

[radja]

>In the light of the fact that governments tend to need to interact with other bodies, I would say they need to use what most other people are using. Which is MS Office.

Wrong. They need to use the format that most people can use, which is NOT MS Office, but a standard. it's the document format that counts, not the software. There are still people who prefer to use WP, StarOffice, etc or use a "non-ms-compliant" OS . Governments should not force people to use certain software, ESPECIALLY commercial software. Pick a format that can be read by WP, StarOffice, and Word.

//rdj

Re:Every government....

[radja]

Depends on how much formatting is actually needed, and frankly I know shit about document formats. Formatting is only a means to an end (making the document better to read). So the real question is: is there a document format that allows enough formatting?

That may mean that some hyperdandy special effects cannot be used any more.

//rdj

Re:Every government....

[Jason Earl]

Right this moment, you would probably have to use MS Word format (in the real world). With the newest beta versions of OpenOffice I wouldn't even be too sad about that. I haven't had any trouble with Word documents for some time.

Fairly soon in Germany, however, the format of choice could very well be StarOffice format, and that's why Microsoft is so worried. They know that if the government starts using StarOffice, then companies doing business with the government (ie. nearly everyone) will soon be using StarOffice if for no other reason than to be compatible with the folks at the Bundestag. The only barrier to loading StarOffice on a computer is disk space. StarOffice itself is very inexpensive (and it can be installed on multiple machines), and StarOffice has a GPLed cousin OpenOffice which is Free. Both use the same document formats.

For a while most folks will probably have copies of both MS Word and StarOffice, but come upgrade time the cost of Microsoft Office will almost certainly seem like a big chunk of change. After all, MS Office is good, but if your clients and customers (and the government) are reasonably likely to have a copy of StarOffice, then paying for MS Office is just one more added expense.

The fact that StarOffice was originally written in Germany probably isn't hurting its case either.

If StarOffice takes off, then Microsoft is in big trouble. Not only does StarOffice completely destroy the market for Microsoft's Office cash cow, but it paves the way for alternative OSes like Linux or Solaris. No doubt that's why Sun is giving StarOffice away for free.

Re:Every government....

[Black Parrot]

> In the light of the fact that governments tend to need to interact with other bodies, I would say they need to use what most other people are using. Which is MS Office.

Thank you for pointing out the need for an ISO standard for document representations.

A standard unencumbered by some robber baron's IP, I should add.

Nothing would unravel Microsoft's hegemony in the WP field as quick as the existence of such a standard and governments that insisted on using it.

Re:Every government....

[Jason Earl]

We are not talking about maintenance jobs. Linux, properly deployed, should actually lower maintenance costs. We are talking about programming jobs. Linux would allow the local software market to flourish instead of being tied to a handful of companies in the United States. Why should the Germans spend their money on U.S. software when they can get Linux solutions from a local German vendor (at a lower price).

For far less than a Microsoft solution the Bundestag could get a custom solution based on Linux and other open standards. This money they spend will even stay in their own economy (meaning that they will get the bulk of it back in taxes).

Let's face it, the reason that this appears to have actual supporters in the Bundestag is because it makes good political sense. Not only would using Linux lower the cost of running the government, but it would support the German economy.

I don't think that many government workers are likely to lose their jobs. There will still be plenty to do, the difference will be that much of their work will no longer be wasted caring for fragile Windows PCs. However, if I worked in IT for the Bundestag I would brush up on my Linux skills right away just in case.

Re:Every government....

[Eccles]

Though I don't use it enough as I should, I thought one of the benefits to Linux/(insert other Open Source OS here) was that once it was up and running, only needed minimal maintenance (as opposed to the bloated effect of Microsoft).

I think the idea is that they may do some of their own development or localization (translation into German) of open source software. I don't know that open source requires any less IT support than Windows, but it doesn't require paying licensing fees, and the money that might normally be spent for licenses could be spent to hire programmers instead.

Governments have large enough budgets that it often makes sense to roll their own, rather than pay licensing fees. This is especially true when open source programs already exist that can be modified for the government's needs, rather than them having to start from scratch.

Closed source software also creates jobs, but these often aren't in the country that is buying the software, and you're also paying for high executive salaries.

Microsoft is the same as ever

[pubjames]

The arrogance of Microsoft is just amazing. They keep trying to make us believe that they have changed their ways, but they really haven't.

What will it take for them to get it into their heads that they are just a supplier? If I found out that one of my clients was seriously considering an alternative product, I would be there grovelling, pointing out the benefits of staying with my company, maybe try to negociate a discount. But no, Microsoft are outraged! They've been slandered!

You would have though they would have learned from the Licence 6.0 fiasco. It's nice to see that the europeans (at least France, Germany and the UK) have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and consider alternatives. Why isn't this happening in the US?

Re:Microsoft is the same as ever

[herk]

Time for the free software advocates to freakout over all the governments discriminating against their products by chosing Microsoft. It's disturbing Microsoft is bold enough to think that they have enough voice to oppose any hint of a drift from their systems and label it discrimination against their products.

Re:They can't afford it

[Rentar]

I shouldn't feed the trolls, but ...

An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.

Well, Windows doesn't require any less maintenance ... except when you run it on a single desktop. But Windows Server really require a lot of maintenance (as do Sun, HP-UX, ...). Theres no real difference here ... of course you can run a windows server unmaintaned, but then it will ... well, let's say "open".

Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly.

"Stuff is known to break when you hit it with other heavy stuff" Nothing new here... every non-journaled FS breaks when not unmounted correctly (besides, it never lost so much data on me, but that might have been luck).

According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS.

So you don't like ReiserFS? How about XFS? Thats definitely not Beta and has been used for years in IRIX now ... (besides, reiserfs has definitely been in productive years for quite some time as well, but never mind)

All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS.

Which drawbacks would that be? The one you mentioned before? No ... ext3 is journaled, so it doesn't break so badly, when not unmounted ...

I'll just skip the part that has has no whatsoever arguments. it is left as an exercise to the reader.

freedom

[daniel2000]

I guess the Germans understand "free market" better than the Americans, without a viable alternative there is no freedom of choice, if there is no alternative to choose there is no free market.

The free market needs maitainance, if it gets dominated by colluding huge companies that can kill competition (or just purchase it) then the term free market is just an advertising jingle.

I can't understand why they even consider Windows.

[Krapangor]

It's not about Linux or Windows being better or cheaper.
The US has admitted that they spy their allies. So why using an US system ? That's a raving security problem. You never know how much backdoor-infested such a system might be. And even code audits won't help with a system with millions of lines of code. They won't never find any decent hidden backdoor.
The Linux question is about security not about money. However nobody admits this because they don't want to piss off the US.

Re:there is a good point in there

[Black Parrot]

> Choosing software JUST because it's open sourced is just as bad as choosing software just because it's closed.

Perhaps "just because it's open sourced" is merely shorthand for "just because of several things that immediately follow from being open sourced", namely -

• auditability (for spyware), and
• maintainability (for when you need something the vendor doesn't care to offer, or when the vendor isn't quick enough to close a known exploit), and
• not having to go down with the ship if the vendor enrons.

Those sound like excellent reasons for choosing a product in the current business environment.

Talk about digging a hole...

[Diabolical]

MS has done this same thing for YEARS without being retributed.

Now they are on the receiving end, they are outraged... in my opinion this is outright hypocritical behaviour... Perhaps they should learn their lesson. It is never EVER a good idea to try to look good by throwing dirt at competitors. The only way for them to go is to show they are better by creating better products and take a more modest attitude.

Ich habe kein Probleme mit Microsoft Anwendung

[Slashamatic]

I don't have a problem with Microsoft applications and operating systems being used by the German government. I have a problem if the Bundestag install Suse and StarOffice everywhere.

I want a variety of systems, ok, it may not be quite so easy to manage, but it means that your complete network doesn't get trashed because of one stupid vulnerability.

However, in crtical systems (either because of availability or confidentiality) then I want open source. Even there, I would like to see multiple system types though, i.e., OpenBSD as well as Linux.

Mind you, Microsoft applications and operating systmes are far from cheap. Buy them with OLP and you keep paying. Buy them as a one-off and there is a lifetime on the software before you pay for upgrades.

Microsoft

[buckrogers]

>> Open Source software," he continues, "is not per se a guarantee of free competition."

This is true, microsoft embraces and extends open source software all the time. BSD socket code and kerberos come to mind. But never anything with a GPL license.

It is so hilarious that they are claiming to be discriminated against, after all those years of Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. I bet a lot of companies complained that microsofts tactics were unfair too. And the courts agreed. Microsoft is a convicted criminal, on 7 counts that are just short of the same charges that they use to put away mob bosses for life.

Microsoft should just consider this to be an innovative method of competition. Open standards, learn them and love them.

Fully open file formats and compliance with non encumbered open standards is the future. Microsoft has already proven time and time again that proprietary software with hidden code is not secure. It is more expensive and it just isn't as flexible. Every other piece of computer equipment got 10 times cheaper and 100 times more powerful over the past 10 years, but the software is no faster now than then. And it costs more, it is now the most expensive single part of a computer system.

Of course there was a reaction to this inequitable pricing and the illegle tactics required to enforce the monopoly. Free software. The vast majority of open source software is written by highly experienced computer experts who are sick and tired of dealing with computers that look pretty but constantly crash and lose work.

Look for computer science to begin rapidly advancing with open sharing and improvements to be made with total comunications in the precise languages used to communicate our intentions to computers.

Of course, Kurt Sibold is outraged

[markj02]

He sees his bonuses greatly diminish if the German government adopts Linux.

Seriously, it really is an important issue if interaction with government entities requires the use of specific software available only from a single vendor, and that is what is increasingly happening. Microsoft can stay in the race by scrupulously opening up their file formats so that real interoperability with non-Microsoft applications is possible. But, so far, Office and other Microsoft applications still produce files whose format does not appear to be completely documented and that cannot be read and manipulated reliably by other applications.

Use Word into eternity?

[gotan]

That's what you advise here. Your argumentation goes: There are so many people using Word for 'office type' documents, so if i want to send a document, i better use Word, cause then it's in a common format and will look the same on everyones screen (which is wrong, by the way, different versions of Word might display your document in different ways or not at all). Then you go on to say everybody should follow this reasoning, by declaring .doc the evident standard. But that means nothing will change, since noone will switch from Word to alternatives, alternative standards won't be established (lacking a userbase), and we will have to put up with Microsofts antics whenever they decide they need to sell another version of Word.

What we need is an open standard. To see why just look at the internet. TCP/IP works so well, that you don't even have to think about it. That is because everyone who implements a TCP/IP stack better plays by the rules, or he won't play at all, and his customers will turn on him if it screws up. If you tried to sell a TCP/IP stack that mangled IP-Packets from older TCP/IP stacks, to make everyone go and buy your new software, it wouldn't work, because everyone could see it's you who violates the standards. But with Word Microsoft does exactly that, because they don't even stay true to their own standards.
--

Doesn't ext3 still statically-allocate inodes?

[emil]

XFS can create inodes on the fly if you run out.

AFAIK, Reiser and XFS both have tremendous speed advantages over ext3 as well.

I've only installed Red Hat 7.2 a couple of times, but it suffers from the same problem as SUSE-Reiser in that it places the file system driver in a module in the initrd.

I much prefer the SGI install "shim" for Red Hat which has compiled XFS in the kernel. I like having a kernel that includes the filesystem support - putting it in a module is just a stupid idea. Any distribution should have its native file system compiled into the kernel, no questions asked.

Red Hat's big reason for not adopting a JFS earlier was the lack of userland repair utilities. I think that they really shafted both the Linux community and SGI, who has released a great and much-needed product. With Red Hat's support, XFS might be in the Linus kernels by now.

Open response to Kurt

[KjetilK]

Kurt, in your open letter, you write:

In your declaration you claim that it is necessary to use democratic rules in the use of IT as well and you conclude that therefore ".. it would almost be the duty of a democratic country to use free software".

I conclude from that, that a country that does not use Linux must be undemocratic or at least does not fulfill its democratic duties.

No, this is not a correct conclusion to draw.

However, for a democratic system to work, nobody must be excluded from participating in democratic processes. Nobody must be excluded from disseminating information, based on whether or not they can afford a specific piece of software, nobody should be forced to accept a specific software license to participate in a democracy.

Microsoft has historically, is an important principle in their business model, excluded those who do not accept their license from using systems developed by Microsoft. Whether or not this acceptable at all, may be an issue for the open market, but it certainly is not acceptable in the context of democracy.

Free Software is built on other principles, and therefore, it is better suited for governmental use. Linux is just one implementation of these principles. You are free to make another implementation, and you are free to make other implementations of the same systems. This freedom is essential to fulfil democratic duties. If Microsoft is unable to ensure these freedoms, then Microsoft products must be abandoned.