Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Campaign for Free Software in the Bundestag

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the click-here-to-renew-your-license-to-govern dept.

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.

32 of 313 comments (clear)

  1. Every government.... by MrBandersnatch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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 ;)

    1. Re:Every government.... by radja · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >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

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    2. Re:Every government.... by radja · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

      --

      No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
      --Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
    3. Re:Every government.... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Every government.... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful


      > 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.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Every government.... by uebernewby · · Score: 3, Informative

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OpenOffice use zipped XML as a native file format already?

      --

      News and bla for computer musicians: http://lomechanik.net/
    6. Re:Every government.... by Jason+Earl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:Every government.... by istartedi · · Score: 3

      it would save the tax payer MILLIONS of (£$E) every year, create a host of jobs

      Ummm... contradiction anyone? I mean, I can see how it would save the taxpayers money initially, because they don't have to pay licensing fees. However, if it creates jobs in the government IT sector, how is that going to save them money? It will only save them money if the licensing fees exceed the salaries of the additional workers (this is the same old TCO debate, no need to re-hash it).

      The other economic factor is the all-too-often neglected factor: boredom. From time-to-time, economies get bored, and then they become depressed because they have nothing to do. So far, the only answers we've found are socialism (New Deal, WPA, CCC, TVA etc.) and militarism (Nazis, Italian Fascists, etc.). Militarism has the virtue of providing a quick fix by reducing the number of job applicants and giving workers something to do after the conflict (rebuilding). Socialism has the virtue of killing people more slowly and in an apparently civilized manner (increased alcoholism and obesity of people on the doll, inferior socialized medecine, etc). The FDR brand of socialism was really not as bad as the wealth-transfer version used in the "great society". A lot of the New Deal projects actually produced work of enduring quality.

      So, the real question is what will we *do* when Microsoft isn't there to tax and spend? Do you really think the government's tax and spend will be better than MSFTs? When was the last time MSFT plowed billions of dollars into a missile program? I say, down with the EU, up with MSFT. Buy your MSFT shares today, and join the Monetary Democratic Republic of Microsoft. Vote for officers that you can trust. They promise citizens that they will use your tax dollars to create cool things like the X-box, and not build any weapons systems unless their competitors force them too.

      Do it today! Your company is calling you. Don't let the Germans get bored again!!!

      --
      For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  2. Microsoft is the same as ever by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Microsoft is the same as ever by pubjames · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Er, yes, and if I found out my competitors were slandering my name and calling me undemocratic, I'd complain.

      Except many of the signitories are actually the client, not a competitor. I think most suppliers would act differently in this situation.

      or do you find it a bit difficult to step back from problems and look at them with an open mind?

      Since you are insinuating things about me, I'll do the same for you. I suggest that you've not been in the situation of being directly responsible for a major client account when that client is seriously considering alternatives.

  3. Re:They can't afford it by Rentar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Trusted software. by AntipodesTroll · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Governments should be using software they can trust, and trust is earned, never gained.

    Windows has some good technology in it, and it is nowdays a halfway-decent product. The problem isnt windows, its Microsoft.

    You just plain cant trust Microsoft, one bit. You dont evven have to ascribe to malevolence. I'm not saying they are nessesarily evil, I am saying they are unreliable. Their attitude to fixing their broken and insecure software (whatever proportion of it you think fits that description) is poor to non-existant, and getting worse. And if they arent going to take the US government seriously (DoJ) then we know they dont even care about any other government, once the licence fees have been paid up.

    --
    Anyone who considers arithmetical methods of producing random numbers is, of course, in a state of sin.-John von Neumann
  5. freedom by daniel2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  6. I can't understand why they even consider Windows. by Krapangor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
  7. Translation of Microsofts open letter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Redundant

    This is a translation of the open letter from Microsofts German Head, Kurt Siebold. I am native German, excuse the bad english, if i got things wrong, its my fault and not my intention:

    Translation:

    Dear Sirs,

    i address you with this open letter in your function as the first signers of the werk21 ( the originators of the campaign ) campaing www.bundestux.de. With some astonishment i noticed that you share the opinion that ".. the introduction of a free operating system in the german bundestab ( the german parliament ) would be a necessary signal for reasons of competitve policy, national policy and democratic reasons."

    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.

    Well, there may be understandable pragmatic reasons to vote for the use of open source software, though you will understand that from my point of view i have equally understandable pragmatic reasons to think that better reason exist to suggest the use of Microsoft products for the Bundestag.

    But what does the decision for or against a operating system have to do with "democratic rules" or "duties of a democratic country" ?

    Open source software is, as you mention, not in itself a guarantee for free competition, as well as a decision for products from my company ( Microsoft ) at this time, as well as in the past, is not and must not be a "undemocratic" decision. As the first signers you pressure members of the parliament to create real competition by making a decision for open source software as the only alternative.

    What you do with your support for this campaign is a public discrimination of our products ( Microsofts) and services to be a hinderance ? to democracy. As my 1300 co-workers in germany feel with such claims, i was able to learn from numerous e-mails. The impact this has for our partners, uncounted small and medium-sized software companies and with our clients, who do not feel limited in their understanding of democracy, i can only imagine.

    Therefore i apell to you: Let us, in the interest of a best solution for the staff of the parliament, return to a pragmatic discussion. I dont mean with that, that a discussion is only pragmatic if it results in a decision for microsoft products. It should though, be based on an assessment of cost and ability of the products and services in the light of the needs of the users.

    yours sincerely,

    Kurt Siebold, Microsoft Germany

  8. linux by sireenmalik · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My first real experience with LINUX came at the Uni of Stuttgart. Almost every lab/computer pool is running linux. I am sure other Unis here in Germany are doing the same. I dont want to flame but i recall the remarks of one German that a **** system like Windows would never be made in Germany, its too unstable. I can only agree with him as i see the Germans's passion for precision, stability and quality. You decide which OS come naturally to their minds.

    --


    Voltaire: God is dead.
    God: Voltaire is dead!
  9. Re:Translation ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dear Sirs,

    i address you with this open letter in your function as the first signers of the werk21 ( the originators of the campaign ) campaing www.bundestux.de. With some astonishment i noticed that you share the opinion that ".. the introduction of a free operating system in the german bundestab ( the german parliament ) would be a necessary signal for reasons of competitve policy, national policy and democratic reasons."

    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.

    Well, there may be understandable pragmatic reasons to vote for the use of open source software, though you will understand that from my point of view i have equally understandable pragmatic reasons to think that better reason exist to suggest the use of Microsoft products for the Bundestag.

    But what does the decision for or against a operating system have to do with "democratic rules" or "duties of a democratic country" ?

    Open source software is, as you mention, not in itself a guarantee for free competition, as well as a decision for products from my company ( Microsoft ) at this time, as well as in the past, is not and must not be a "undemocratic" decision. As the first signers you pressure members of the parliament to create real competition by making a decision for open source software as the only alternative.

    What you do with your support for this campaign is a public discrimination of our products ( Microsofts) and services to be a hinderance ? to democracy. As my 1300 co-workers in germany feel with such claims, i was able to learn from numerous e-mails. The impact this has for our partners, uncounted small and medium-sized software companies and with our clients, who do not feel limited in their understanding of democracy, i can only imagine.

    Therefore i apell to you: Let us, in the interest of a best solution for the staff of the parliament, return to a pragmatic discussion. I dont mean with that, that a discussion is only pragmatic if it results in a decision for microsoft products. It should though, be based on an assessment of cost and ability of the products and services in the light of the needs of the users.

    yours sincerely,

    Kurt Siebold, Microsoft Germany

  10. Re:Poor Bill? by Saint+Fnordius · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Swedish government? Porting the Mac to x86? Huh?

    First off, the first link points to a Swedish news site (instead of German newswires like Stern or Heise), but the debate is raging in Germany. Microsoft was taken off guard by this petition, and by the amount of support it has been receiving. Thus the "wounded bear" attitude in Microsoft's open letter.

    Second, this is about Linux on existing computers, a market Apple definitely does NOT want to enter. Apple makes hardware, and writes its own interface above Darwin/FreeBSD. In Apple's eyes, the OS is only there to sell its own hardware, not for profit. But this isn't the place to beat THAT horse carcass.

    Third, AFAICT the only one seeing this as a War is Microsoft. Microsoft is playing a Monopoly/Risk sort of game, where the winner drives all other players from the board. Apple is playing a totally different game, one where you win by being the best/coolest/owning the McGuffin. Linux advocates are sometimes playing one game, sometimes playing the other, but rarely do Linux users/advocates all play the game, or the same rules, or share the same goals.

    I personally find the goal of the petition worth supporting. My personal taste runs towards Apple, but I'm willing to see the massive benefits of using existing hardware (if for no other reason than to save landfill space). And Linux is, at the moment, the best option.
    Oh, some links to other reports, in German:

    Stern:
    http://www2.stern.de/computer-netze/news/topnews /i ndex_45450.html

    Spiegel:
    http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,18 02 42,00.html
    http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,18 09 33,00.html

    Heise Online:
    http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-01.02.02 -0 04/

  11. Re:there is a good point in there by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful


    > 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.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  12. Why you should not trust'em by AftanGustur · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The chances may be slim, and a conspiracy theory involved, but still, this is a good reason not to trust Microsoft.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  13. Talk about digging a hole... by Diabolical · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  14. Goose - Gander Time. by sallen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What's that old cliche`..what's good for the goose is good for the danger?

    I find it interesting MS is going so far as to be saying they're being discriminated against by comments made about Microsoft.

    Wasn't it fairly recently Ballmer and those of his ilk in the MS empire were saying Linux / open software was 'unamerican' and 'communist'?? They oviously don't mind criticizing when they're playing hardball or violating antitrust laws but if they're on the end of the comments, they're so offended and being discriminated against.

    Speaking of anti-trust laws. Though convicted, have they yet said 'gee, guess we did it.' or so much as 'sorry'. I don't believe they yet acknowledge it, even to themselves. Guess that's why I have little use for them.

  15. Re:.. XML Rules by bfree · · Score: 4, Funny

    <ms eula='dmca protected content' drm='8jhdsYBwe8hd'>
    <doc gen='OfficeYP' style='KndsJHNs7yu3'>
    <1 alt='Heading'>JKMDShsdlkD32u9ou2ohHDJISjkds8765 8GY</1>
    <2 alt='Body'>kjdshBHDSiki7sdgw3ioewrq9hIJHSi9e3bn dfweidhjhjdfksIKGHDSIJ2e9quyi</2>
    </doc>
    </ms>

    --

    Never underestimate the dark side of the Source

  16. Microsoft by buckrogers · · Score: 3, Insightful

    >> 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.

    --
    -- Never make a general statement.
  17. Re:Translation ... by SerpentMage · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know what annoys me about this is that MS has "conviently" forgotten the original context. You see what originally happened is that there was a debate on what software to use. This started out tame enough.

    BUT then one of the members of parliament made a few comments on how to "decide" the best software. People would have thought, hmm, sounds interesting. UNTIL you figure out what is going on in the background. You see while this member of parliament is working for the state he was actually receiving steady income from a Microsoft solution provider. He said, but I am working for that company 1 day a month. (BTW his income was some absurd amount for 12 days of work)

    While the parliament did not understand what was going on the IT industry did. As a result the LINUX community went on the offensive and declared war! (right so!) They had to do something otherwise the members of parliament would make a decision that seemed "democractic" when in fact it was not.

    Hence why I am annoyed at this Microsoft Yahoo and his calls for "democracy" and doing everything correctly!!!!

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
  18. Rationale why "Every government...." by ackthpt · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Ok, let's enumerate the advantages

    Source is open, no sneaky CIA or Microsoft or script kiddies spying on formative legislation, intelligence, etc.

    Saves big zorkmids on license fees (the tender spot for M$, government is a HUGE customer and can establish the trend for business and education software standards used, see all those zorkmids departing the pocketbook)

    Costs some zorkmids for support and mods, but you actually get support and mods you want, rather that support and mods the closed vendor feels like providing you, creating competition in the support market (a GoodThing)

    Built-in extortion of government having to "upgrade" (and shell out really big zorkmids) every few years for upgrades because M$ announces it will no longer support Windows n

    Customer driven market. What the customer wants/needs isn't anticipated (and turned out in an incarnationof one-size-fits all), but tailored to the needs of the customer. If the Bundestag says "we want x that does y, in z way, then someone can step up and do it, it may take time, but of course others can benefit as it adds to open source.

    As to suggestions that open source isn't good quality or pracicable (muchly as part of M$ whispering campaign against Linux, Open Source, etc.), much of that would be addressed by an expanding market.

    If it succeeds, props to the Bundestag, way to show some moxie!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  19. Of course, Kurt Sibold is outraged by markj02 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

  20. Use Word into eternity? by gotan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    --

    --
    "By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
  21. Microsoft/NSA Back Door in Windows. by Martin+S. · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Without the source how can a government be sure that the software cannot be used to spy on them

    They cannot, indeed there is plently of evidence the Microsoft have already installed a backdoor in the CryptoAPI, as part of the US Government Echelon project.

    NSA key to Windows: an open question
    http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/window s. nsa.02/

    Eavesdropping on the Planet
    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Eavesdrop pi ngPlanet_RS.html

    Microsoft collaborating with US spymasters
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/659 8. html

    http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=active &q =_NSAKEY+Key+Microsoft+CryptoAPI&btnG=Google+Searc h&meta=

  22. Doesn't ext3 still statically-allocate inodes? by emil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  23. Open response to Kurt by KjetilK · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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.

    --
    Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  24. Reply to Microsoft's Letter from a German MoP by Cynical_Dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A German Member of Parliament replied to Microsoft Germany's letter.

    Original (German)

    Google translation