Slashdot Mirror
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.
Of course we all know who is behind this.
One of the guiding concepts behind all versions of all UNIX versions and dialects is choice. The mere fact that you have many different dialects is a demonstration of this. NT proponents, claim the opposite, that the different UNIX versions only lead to confusion and internal conflicts within the UNIX community. Although there is a certain amount of competition between the various UNIX vendors, competition is what makes for a better product. The applies to any market and not just operating systems. With Windows NT, there is just a single company developing it. They decide what goes into it. They decide what is good for you. If they have decided that certain functionality is not needed it won't be included in the product, no matter how many users want or need it. With UNIX, if one developer includes a certain functionality, the others must follow suite or they will lose customers. Linux takes this one step further by providing the source code for the operating system and almost all of the associated tools and programs. If a single user finds a certain functionality, missing he or she has direct access to the developer (their email address is almost always included in the source code or doc). If the developer feels that the change is significant, it will be included. If not, the user can include it themselves. In addition, there are dozens of tools to enable people to add to or change their system as they see fit. The limited functionality that the Microsoft tools provide is something that you have to pay for. In many cases almost the same price as for the operating system. This is also true for Linux. However since the operating system is free, the development tools are also free. Another aspect of this choice is the configuration of the system. Here too, how far you can configure your system is what Microsoft has decided is important. Although you have access to the "internals" of the system through the registry, it is extremely cryptic and there is the danger that one small error makes your systems unusable forcing a reinstall. With Linux, there are always multiple copies of the kernel to help you if you need to recover. You can even boot from a floppy if you need to. Linux is a lot harder to use for a beginner as much of the system is accessible only through long paths or obscure file names. However, since the system is open, you can configure the system exactly the way you want it. Tools are provided with all versions (all include compilers) that allow you to expand your system. There is less inter-operability between applications because there is no large, monolithic company like Microsoft. However, since there is no vendor for the OS, no one is worried about the OS vendor throwing in something extra. Most "normal" users do not have experience with it and the command line is very intimidating. Therefore it is difficult to provide support over the phone. However, who needs to? All you need is a modem and you can do remote administration within about 10 minutes. Learning Linux is like learning a foreign language. Once you have overcome the initial intimidation, there is a whole new power available to you. You can do something that other people (or other OSes) can't. It has been claimed that UNIX has the disadvantage of carry around a "ball and chain" since it is almost 30 years old. However, most of what Microsoft claims as being New Technology (where the name NT comes from) is just a re-hash of existing concepts that exist on UNIX and other operating systems. Linux has all the advantages in terms of reliability, functionality that comes from decades of UNIX market experience. There is also a much larger skill base for UNIX and therefore Linux. If you know UNIX, it is a short jump to any other dialect. If you know NT, that's it. Your knowledge is only useful on a single product, from a single vendor. Even the knowledge and experience with one Microsoft system (Windows 95) is of limited value with another (Windows NT). Added to that the fact that Linux provides the source code to allow you to make the changes you need. One common argument against Linux (or UNIX for that matter) is that it is fragmented, with a plethora of different variations. There are a couple of things that people do not realize. First, Microsoft is full of these variants. Windows NT, Windows 2000, Windows 9x, Windows CE. Windows ME, Windows NT Terminal Edition. All serve different needs. Although they are superficially similar calling them a single product demonstrates a lack of understanding of these products (or simply falling for Microsoft's marketing propaganda). Having separate products is nothing new and not an attack against Microsoft. It makes sense to have separate products for different tasks, just as you do not normally toast bread in the oven. You choose the right tool for the right task. However, once again, Microsoft is not honest about it. Another aspect is personal preference, which goes beyond simply liking different colors. The best example is cars. They serve the purpose of moving people from one place to another. Global positioning systems, anti-lock brakes, air bags, and even CD players are all part of the features that you look for when buying a car. Sometimes it is a matter of how easy it is to reach the dashboard controls, getting into the car, or how much headroom you have. Not every car is perfect for every situation and every task. How many couples do you know have the exact same car? Taking Microsoft's claim to this extreme, it would make sense. Each time you got into the car, there would be no need to re-adjust. The oil filter and all of the other parts would be the same, so there would no problem getting replacements. However, people are different. Situations are different. Therefore, you choose the best thing in each case. In once case it can be Linux. In others, it's Sun Solaris. In another Windows NT/2000. The company I work for has all three and in use because no one has all of the features we need. If we want ease of use, we typically choose NT. However, if we need to configure the operating system beyond the basics, NT never comes into consideration. This is the beauty of Linux. You have a choice. Joseph Weizenbaum of MIT said in reference to computers: "Science has promised man power...But, as so often happens when people are seduced by promises of power, the price is servitude and impotence. Power is nothing if it is not the power to choose." Linux is choice - Linux is power.
Don't forget "Hey baby, let's eron".
*ducks*
--- Think of it as evolution in action ---