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.
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?
>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
I shouldn't feed the trolls, but ...
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".
"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).
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Swedish government? Porting the Mac to x86? Huh?
s /i ndex_45450.html
8 02 42,00.html
8 09 33,00.html
2 -0 04/
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/topnew
Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,1
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,1
Heise Online:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-01.02.0
> 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
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.