Slashdot Mirror
Peruvian Congressman vs. Microsoft FUD
An Anonymous Coward writes: "Carve a new face on the Mount Rushmore of Linux:
Peruvian Congressman David Villanueva Nuñez brilliantly vapourizes the Chicken Little division of the MS Fud Machine.
Long read but inspiring.
Add another name to the list of people who get
that 'All that is required for Evil to triumph
is that good men do nothing.'"
Update: 05/07 00:03 GMT by T : Antonio Ognio Cesti has an update: "We are some activists working
here in Peru to bring the documents
to more eyeballs with better bandwidth." They've done just that, writing, "Now we have much better hosting in the U.S. and the original FUD letter completely translated into English."
Everytime I read the letter, I think they are talking about Bill G not the Bill. Of course, the Bill is the oppostie of what Bill wants. So in reviewing the Bill, I support the Bill because Bill doesn't like the Bill.
I think.
Sounds odd, but this is exactly what needs to happen to slap MS down a peg or two. I have read on several occasions recently that most of South and Central America are considering open-source in all government computers -- that's great! No chance in hell of it happening here in the US, but then their governments aren't propped up by corporations, either...
...we are from the government - we are here to help...
This was posted just a few days ago. Don't you editors ever check at all? /. It would benefit us all.
Sounds like there is some need for a better search engine at
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
Hey look, there's the ball over there ---->.
:P
And here's timothy over here
But wait, who's on the ball?
I dunno, but it sure ain't timothy...cuz this was posted 2 days ago.
Best. Comment. Ever. Enjoy!
Just better searchers. Type 'peruvian' in the little search box thingy and that article comes right up.
Best Slashdot Co
Not because OSS is best in *every* situation - but because in the 80% where it is the right decision, this article explains the needs to do it right (ie - have staff that is trained, pay for support), while dismissing the fears sent by proprietary companies.
The fact is, OSS is here to stay in the business, and only by really competing (ie - coming up with a better product for the price) can businesses hope to keep profitable. Of course, with more companies (Red Hat, Suse, IBM) making a profit from Open Source, the consumer will win every time.
Ah, competition. How I love thee.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I've been trying to hit http://www.gnu.org.pe all day, with no luck. Comments about re-posting an article from Saturday aside (after all, many don't check /. til Monday morning), brief letters from tiny, foreign webservers are the sort of thing that ought to be pasted into the /. article explanation.
With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. --RFC 1925
He was obviously out this weekend, enjoying the pleasant weather wherever it is he lives. He comes in on Monday morning, just like you or I would, to find the submissions bin overflowing with (mostly) crap. Do you think he has time to look over all the stuff Taco et al posted over the weekend before he makes his selections?
--
E_NOSIG
Q: What's the difference between an M-16 and /.?
A: An M-16 only repeats 100x/min.
But while we're back (still?)on the topic, has anyone translated the original FUD letter from the M$ Peru guy (might be mirrored, which the honorable Sr. Nunez so elquently rebutted, into English?
Fight for your right to read books!
Aside from that, the letter is really interesting. It's very well-written and persuasive, IMO. In fact, I have trouble believing it was written by a Congressperson for that very reason. Also, I wonder how many American legislators can write that clearly in English. Not to mention how direct the langauge is, actually avoiding the kinds of analogies and meaningless soundbites that fill American political speech.
The more I think of this, the more it says to me "hoax." Anyone have a read on the authenticity of the letter?
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
As a non-english speaking person I found it difficult to read the article, because every time they talk about "Bill Number 1609", I see this picture of thousands of Bill Gates clones. Oh the horror! I guess I'm waiting too much fot the Attack Of The Clones.
Here is a link to the entire letter on slashdot.
Live today. Tomorrow will cost a lot more!
Yes, this was just posted Saturday, but I'll bet a lot of people don't look back at stuff from the weekends. That being said ...
His letter is a long way of saying, "Please decide which side of your mouth to speak out of." By the third time he pointed out, "This contradicts what you said in the previous paragraph," I had tears streaming down my face.
This contradiction alone would invalidate your position.
...
This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs.
...
In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3.
...
On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately precding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.
Nope, no sig
Yes, the guy's a genius. Yes, it's a blow. But bear in mind, if you read the entire thing, it doesn't talk about putting Linux on every public sector PC.
;P
The gist that I get is that they're definitely moving to an open-source/free office suite.
They don't really say anything about changing the OS, although I think it would make plenty of sense if they're willing to put up with the costs of re-educating every govt. employee.
Hrm. Since Nunez mentions Theo and Darren Reed, I'm guessing that Peru is going to be installing OpenBSD with ipf, not Linux as some of you might have hoped...
This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitvity is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.
Microsoft: Why you little...! We have $40 billion dollars cash! That's a third of your GDP for one year! We will crush you!
RedHat, et al: Wait a minute, you mean we can actually compete fairly with Microsoft?
Apple: OS X has UNIX underpinnings, and is lickable!
RedHat, et al: This'll be like shooting fish in a barrel...
FreeBSD: What about me? I'm always left behind to do the real work. Why can't I be hip and flashy too?
Since so many /. users notice so quickly that a story is a repost, why don't the editors do the same? Do they actually read what the others ran?
/. homepage...
It might be because of the duplicates the editors see all day in the submission bin. When you read so many stories, it might be difficult to judge if you already saw it in the submission bin (and rejected it) or if it made it through to
Would a "not a repost" committee, with some regular users as members, help? They could be chosen the same way as moderators (randomly, but still based on past level of activity). This would likely catch a lot of reposts, since usually, in the first ~30 comments, half of them are complaining about the repost. If a member flags a story as repost, the editor could then verify it, and refrain from actually putting it on the frontpage and look as somebody not doing a lot of backgroung checking.
Food for thought...
Edmund Burke, a famous British statesman (1729-1797).
Absit Invidia
all our politicians are lawyers....
love is just extroverted narcissism
it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature [...] you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring [...] since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.
If MS would submit arguments in favor of proprietary software instead of submitting FUD in opposition to free software, then this would allow an even more enlightening exchange! Wow! Just the exchange in this letter was enlightening enough. Probably so enlightening that MS doesn't want to draw any more attention.
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
It was translated. The links to the original versions are at the very top of the article.
Unfortunately, the links are down, so, google cache time!
Original Response
Original Microsoft FUD Letter
Both are in Spanish, BTW.
- Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
What I find funny is that the people who constantly complain about reposts can't figure
out that they are doing the same thing.
That said, I have to say, "You go, Edgar!" Replies to M$ FUD needs more people like you.
-Sean
Everyone of the argument planks in the proposed bill is good, and not just for Peru. Every sovereign government based upon the ideas of representative democracy can expect similar gains if they were to follow the same principles. They are logical principles.
Free, unencumbered and open communication are the hallmarks of any society that hopes to better itself. Restricting communication to those who can afford to pay for a read/write access device, such as MS Word or Corel Wordperfect or whatever, is an inefficiency, pure and simple.
Enduring archival of public documents is, likewise, important for any society that wishes to learn from history instead of repeating the same mistakes. A written language used to be enough to guarantee such archival. Now, the essential medium is no longer paper, but the authoring and reading of documents is no longer just a matter of learning how to read and write, it's become of matter of having paid all of the taxes.
National security issues of knowing exactly what it is you are running. This is one issue that largely continues beneath the surface. It's very surprising to me that in the post 9/11 world that more hasn't been made of critical infrastructure running only programs you can see for yourself and compile for yourself.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
It will be very interesting to see whether MS will get any of the "free" trade orgs into this or (more likely) get the US to lean on Peru. They use words like "discriminatory" which have specific meaning with respect to international trade.
A World Trade Organization ('member the big protest in Seattle?) action would require action by the US government on MS's behalf. That's pretty unlikely given the likely size of the trade, it would probably be more trouble than its worth.
Under the in process Free Trade Area of the Americas agreement ('member the protests in Quebec City?) MS could sue Peru directly and receive compensation and overturn the law (if that statement doesn't bother you replace the word "Peru" with "US" or whatever country you live in and see how that makes you feel).
In any event its very likely that MS's Washington lobbyist corp has talked to the office of the US Trade Rep and Peru will suffer in some way for its impudence to MS.
You know whenever I read Tony Blair's speeches for instance or the writings of other foreign politicians such as this one, I get a little jealous. The holder of the highest political office in this country, in addition to constantly using phrases like "evil-doers" and "smoke 'em out of their holes", says things like:
"This foreign policy stuff is a little frustrating."
- G.W. Bush as quoted by the New York Daily News, April 23, 2002
See http://www.bushcartoon.com/bushisms.html for more examples.
Completely agree,
I am about 3/4 of the way through the article so far - and I just have to say that it feels good for someone outside of the Free Software community to "Get It". It seems as if this congressman truly understands the principles upon which Free Software are grounded. This is something that has long eluded many other people in the world, and it is nice to see that these ideals are starting to have an effect.
This letter, is almost written as a "Declaration of Independence". It is about a country trying to free itself from the shackles of an institution located many miles away. He even mentions several times: "transnational companies" - companies from other areas of the world who could potentially hold power over the State.
This is a huge win for Free Software - I highly recommend that whether you like Microsoft or not you give this letter a read - it is truly enlightening.
Derek
Peru giving the first world a lesson in democratic principles. Should be required reading for every candidate at every level in US politics.
illegitimii non ingravare
There is a mirror in spanish:
Hay un espejo en español:
http://www.usm.edu.ec/~amadorm/index.php?p=217&c=1
Rudd-O - http://rudd-o.com/
If only people would argue in the logical and objective demonstrated by this letter, rather than flaming on about the evils of MSFT. Amazing what it does to your level of credibility. Platform-zealots take note!
What was this about?
I've read a bit of the Federalist Papers (okay, it was just Alexander Hamilton's brilliant first paper... it goes downhill as soon as you get to John Jay's first writing) and of course we've all read the Declaration of Independence and other such great documents. And this reads like one of those documents. This guy could give lessons in what being a Democratic and Free state really means to the US Government. In fact, I think this letter should be required reading for all US Government officials.
I'd even go as far as to say we should begin a letter-writing campaign to mail copies of this to our congress-critters, to the White House, and to the national news media.
I'm going to put this on my TODO: list. I am going to draft a letter with these contents, and mail them to the people who represent me.
As the submitter said, "All that is required for Evil to triumph is that good men do nothing." I may not be a perfectly good man, but I'm going to do SOMETHING!
I'm contemplating the following after reading the AMAZING article: If I'm a U.S. citizen, can I sue the government for not allowing me full access to the source code of the programs that handle all my data?
Like the letter sent back to Microsoft says: how will I know that the software being used to count votes or calculate my taxes is working as it should if I don't have full access to the system running it???
I figure that anyone who takes this matter to court, and ultimately to the supreme court has a good chance at winning the case, which could eventually force congress/senate to pass a bill mandating open-source software to be used for all govergment affairs.
Any lawyers here have any comments on this?
Side note: I have to admit that this letter sent from this peruvian guy to Microsoft is one of the most amazing and clear documents I have read this year. This should be published by the Free Software Foundation and send copies to all law makers in all countries of the world (for real).
Repeat or not, this Congressman is still my hero!
Nice rebuttle!
Just lay off the editors. They've got other things to do like spending working day after working day in front of their playstations. They are also responsible for planning and resourcing trips to the movie theatre. You think that the deep and insightful movie reviews that we are lucky enough to find here just appear out of thin air?
We should be thankful that they're busy schedules allow any resources at all to be devoted to posting and researching these stories. Who can honestly say that its humanly possible for any of them to pay attention to what was posted only 24 to 48 hours ago? Any of us would surely make the same mistakes after our 10th hour of redbulled fueled Final Fantasy.
And don't you dare mention any thing like a review period or even the most simplistic of approval mechanisms for their postings. Because you would then clearly be in league with the RIAA, BillG, (or insert favorite techno-nazi here) and denying them their right to post whatever they want when they want.
You have the name of the law correct. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requires that most kinds of information be available to the general public. There are exceptions for classified information, information that's protected by privacy (e.g. you shouldn't be able to get a copy of my tax return, etc).
I think the big jump you're making here is how the information is stored versus the information itself.
The Peruvian (and most free software people) want to say that the way the information is stored should be open and accessible to all. That is, whether the documents are kept in a locked filing cabinet, a computer, or posted to every chat room in the world, the way to access the information should be held hostage by a single vendor. The information must be accessible at all times.
That doesn't mean that the government should share all of the information all of the time with the people. While storing documents in an open format such as HTML would give them the opportunity to do so, it doesn't mean that they have to.
From PBS Frontline:
Under the terms of NAFTA, an environmental regulation is regarded as a "taking" and the state may have to pay a huge settlement to the manufacturer.
Nope, no sig
If only the rest of us could craf our responses with such finesse...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Sunday was a great day for reading intelligent and insightful commentary on Free Software and Copyleft.
/. comments.)
First, I got up to read the letter mentioned here. (Was that really the congressman who penned that?? Wow. In any event, what a very nice read.)
Next, I go to the bookstore and stumble across:
Free, as in Speech and Beer, absolutey without peer as the _best_ most insightful book on copyleft and free software and its implications that I have yet read.
(And I've read a bunch of them.)
The strangest thing: I'd never even heard of it. It was just sitting there on the new releases.
Read the letter above, then go and buy the book, too. On both counts you will be pleasantly surprised at the quality of discourse taking place on the topics we all care about. (Something you don't always get from
The book doesn't appear to be at Amazon yet, but what the hey... Canadian dollars are cheap! (The link above is to the Canadian equivalent of Amazon/B&N)
With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence
This statement alone should form the basis for many kinds of IT decisions, not just purchasing. Absolute brilliance.
where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.
Hear, hear. Stating that a smarter, better informed "consumer" is a better served consumer is profound in its simplicity, and it neatly states an irrefutable argument that I think developers and admins have been trying to put into words for decades.
Now if we can just do the same for open-source music, the RIAA will have no reason to bitch either.
Well, I mean, they'd have a reason to bitch, but only because the potential money source that they call "stolen revenues" -- don't even get me started -- will have gone away forever. Sounds equatible to me.
GMFTatsujin
Gates: I'm the richest man on Earth, made all my money from the software business, and I'm asking you all to acquire or develop software in such a way as to make me, an *American*, even richer.
Peru: Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
(What did we do before google? ;)
http://www.pcworldmalta.com/specials/MSPiracy
PARIS (11/28/2001) - The French subsidiary of one of the world's most vocal opponents of software piracy has itself been convicted of pirating a French 3D animation program. This is the first ruling on a matter that dates back to 1995, when Microsoft Corp. bought Softimage, a 3D computer-generated image (CGI) specialist whose software violated the intellectual property of a small French software house.
The Commercial Court of Nanterre fined Microsoft France 3 million francs (US$422,000) in damage and interest for software piracy. "It's a start," said a lawyer for the plaintiffs, "although Microsoft continues to stall on the provisional execution of the judgment."
Some fact-checking shows the following:
. htm) is a real member of the Congress. His email is evillanueva@congreso.gob.pe.
Congressman Edgar David Villanueva Nunez (www.congreso.gob.pe/congresista/2001/evillanueva
If you go to the page mentioned above, you will see some pictures/buttons at the top left. Click the one that shows some fingers holding a pen ('Proyectos de ley presentados'/Projects). He apparently introduced 25 pieces of legislation in the First Session in 2001, and 7 during the Second Session.
During the First Session, he introduced Bill 1609, 'Software Libre' (Free Software). It was sent to two Committees on 7 January 2002: Education, Science, & Technology, and to Consumer Protection and Public Services Regulation.
He introduced a similar bill in the Second Session, number 2485, 'Use of Free Software by the Public Administration.' As of 12 April 2002, it is in the same Committees as the first bill (1609).
I would post both Bills here, but a) they are looong, and 2) they are en espanol. So, if you want to read them.....the full text of both Bills are available through Congressman Villanueva Nunez's page.
Happy babelfishing!
It's worth a repost (and a reread) just in case anyone missed it the first time around. It's still news.
In NZ, we have a law firm taking Microsoft to the commerce commission for issues related to Software Assurance. He has writen a very nice brief outlining many of the issues, and it is well worth a read. Click here to read more. There are links to various letters and news articles covering this issue.
One big point that the Commerce Commission raised, is that if SA is such a big issue, why aren't bigger companies and countries picking it up?!
I'm pretty sure that the only Executive office exempt from this is the White House. All other offices/departments/agencies/commissions must release information whenever asked.
...in
... could reasonably be expected to interfere
Nope. Each agency can withold information based on the following exemptions, which can be found in
5 USC 552(b).
To wit the Census Bureau says:
It is the policy of the agency to make records available to the public to the greatest extent possible, in keeping with the spirit of the FOIA, while at the same time protecting sensitive information that may be withheld pursuant to one of the FOIA's exemptions. In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(b), the following is a list of these exemptions which apply to Government information subject to the FOIA:
(b)(1) EXEMPTION - Protects Classified Matters of National Defense or Foreign Policy
This exemption protects from disclosure national security information concerning the national defense or foreign policy,provided that it has been properly classified in accordance with the substantive and procedural requirements of an executive order.
(b)(2) EXEMPTION - Internal Personnel Rules and Practices
This exemption exempts from mandatory disclosure records "related solely to the internal personnel rules and practices of an agency." Courts have interpreted the exemption to encompass two distinct categories of information:
(a) internal matters of a relatively trivial nature--sometimes referred to as "low2" information; and
(b) more substantial internal matters, the disclosure of which would risk circumvention of a legal requirement--sometimes referred to as "high 2" information.
(b)(3) EXEMPTION - Information Specifically Exempted by Other Statutes
This exemption incorporates the disclosure prohibitions that are contained in various other federal statutes. As originally enacted in 1966, Exemption 3 was broadly phrased so as to simply cover information "specifically exempted from disclosure by statute." The new Exemption 3 statute prohibits agencies from releasing under the FOIA any proposal "submitted by a contractor in response to the requirements of a solicitation for a competitive proposals," unless that proposal "is set forth or incorporated by reference in a
contract entered into between the agency and the contractor that submitted the proposal."
(b)(4) EXEMPTION - Trade Secrets, Commercial or Financial Information
This exemption protects "trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person [that is] privileged or confidential." This exemption is intended to protect the interests of both the government and submitters of information.
(b)(5) EXEMPTION - Privileged Interagency or Intra-agency Memoranda or Letters
This exemption protects "interagency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party
litigation with the agency." As such, it has been construed to "exempt those documents and only those documents that are normally privileged in the civil discovery context."
(b)(6) EXEMPTION - Personal Information Affecting an Individual's Privacy
This exemption permits the government to withhold all information about individuals in "personnel and medical files and similar files" when the disclosure of such information " would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." This exemption cannot be invoked to withhold from a requester information pertaining to the requester.
(b)(7) EXEMPTION - Investigatory Records Compiled for Law Enforcement Purposes
As amended, this exemption protects from disclosure "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes...."
EXEMPTION 7(A) Records or information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings. This exemption authorizes the withholding of "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, but only to the extent that production of such law enforcement records or information
with enforcement proceedings."
EXEMPTION 7(B) Records, the disclosure of which would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication.
This exemption is aimed at preventing prejudicial pretrial publicity that could impair a court proceeding, protects "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes [the disclosure of which] would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication."
EXEMPTION 7(C) Personal Information in Law Enforcement Records. This exemption provides protection for personal information in law enforcement records. This exemption is the law enforcement counterpart to Exemption 6, providing protection for law enforcement information the disclosure of which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of
personal privacy."
EXEMPTION 7 (D) Identity of a Confidential Source. This exemption provides protection for "records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes [which] could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source --including a State, local, or foreign agency or authority or any private institution which furnished information on a confidential basis--and, in the
case of a record or information compiled by a criminal law enforcement authority in the course of a criminal investigation, or by an agency conducting a lawful national security intelligence investigation,information furnished by a confidential source."
EXEMPTION 7(E) Circumvention of the Law. This exemption affords protection to all law enforcement information which "would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."
EXEMPTION 7(F) To Protect the Physical Safety of a Wide Range of Individuals. This exemption permits the withholding of information necessary to protect the physical safety of a wide range of individuals. Whereas Exemption 7(F) previously protected records that "would... endanger the life or physical safety of law enforcement personnel," the amended exemption provides protection to "any individual" when disclosure of information about him or her "could reasonably be expected to endanger [his/her] life or physical safety."
(b)(8) EXEMPTION - Regulation of Financial Institutions
This exemption protects matters that are "contained in or related to examination, operating, or condition reports prepared by,on
behalf of, or for the use of an agency responsible for the regulation or supervision of financial institutions."
(b)(9) EXEMPTION - Geological and Geophysical Information Concerning Wells
This exemption covers "geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells."
You can find this information in Peru's world factbook entry.
Why is my Congresscritter not as well educated as this fine fellow? I'll be sending his letter to my elected leaders.
The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. A democracy, if you attach meaning to terms, is a system of unlimited majority rule; the classic example is ancient Athens. And the symbol of it is the fate of Socrates, who was put to death legally, because the majority didn't like what he was saying, although he had initiated no force and had violated no one's rights.
Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom....
The American system is a constitutionally limited republic, restricted to the protectrion of individual rights. In such a system, majority rule is applicable only to lesser details, such as the selection of certain personnel. But the majority has no say over the basic principles governing the government. It has no power to ask for or gain the infringement of individual rights.
--Leonard Peikfoff
The Bill is specific to all software used in the public domain. This means libraries, government offices, etc.
The bills main purpose is to ensure that there's no possibility of data access being dependant on a private 3rd party. The citizens entrust the goverment with their data and the goverment is making sure that they will always be able to provide it free of charge.
To not have the source code makes you 100% dependant on the company that produces it. Lets say terrorists blow up all the MS buildings and MS somehow falls off the face of the earth. 2 days later a security hole is found and a worm compromises every system running Outlook (Not hard to believe). Who will create the patch? What would happen is the US government would do like they did during Melissa and other worms. They pull the plug on internet access and data is no longer available to the people.
The other rebuttals are simply a way of giving MS the finger for trying such lame FUD tactics on a guy that's obviously technically competent and intelligent. I love it.
... of the world.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Probably, your best choice would be Mandrake Linux 8.2. It is now available boxed (with helpful manuals). Check http://www.mandrake-linux.com/en/
It comes with graphical configuration tools, "windows-like".
OF course, you can do everything from the command line. But for begginers (or when you are in a hurry), the GUI tools are great.
Contrast this letter with the Oricle/Gray Davis scandal in CA. The Davis administration purchased $40mil worth of software for state employees who don't exist in exchange two weeks later for a $16,0000 donation to Davis' campaign. Hmmmm. No conflict of interest here! Move along!
And now that a state investigation is looking into the matter, Davis has re-staffed the committee with his political allies! Sweet! Does anybody remember Nixon's "Saturday Night Massacre?" Deja Vu?
Or there's Senior Juan Gonzalez, who besides making good coffee, actually looks out for the public good. Senior Gonzalez could have likely arranged a fat little campaign contribution from Micro$oft, but instead has told them in 10 pages that they are full of it.
I wish I could vote for this guy.
Not only does he understand the free software movement, he represents his people. When is the last time YOU felt like the people you voted for looked out for you?
My last thought on this is if Europe starts passing lots of stupid DMCA style laws, Peru would be a damn good home for the Free Software movement.
Pardon the typo. It should read $16,000.
Interesting how MS is all of a sudden concerned about non-competitive practices, isn't it?
C|N>K
I want to have his manbabies.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
- We need to get doctors in congress like that one.
- Democracy is a form of do-it-yourself open source by the people.
- If history has shown anything, the OS wars are following similar lines as other tragic events in history:
Starting with Microsoft rejecting the feasability of open source:
1) Totalitarian govermnents that reject the existence of neighboring nations, usually in an attempt to acquire them.
2) Regimes that descriminate between their people, implying that some are citizens while others have no rights.
3) Large religions that have no tolerance over beliefs that appear to challenge their ways. These beliefs could be alternate religions, political opionions, or even scientific discoveries. The imposing religions make statements that the "non-believers" are damned. They associate elements of the others with their own fictional evil elements to the point that "acknowledging a hell implies acceptance of the oppressor's religion". They actively proselytize (convert), persecute, excommunicate, interrogate, censor, to further their own unknown agendas. This also includes denying the existence of the other beliefs.
Bad things happen when you trust the wrong people.
I thought the numbers where $75 million US (for the software) and $25,000US on the "campaign donation."
Based on what is known at this time (and this is sure to change) only $35m worth of software was really needed, but $75m was purchased. Hence the $40m in overcharges.
As far as the $25,000 campain, I've heard $14,000, but hey, the day is young.
Bye, Bye Gray. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.
Didn't see healthcare, but annual income is about $4500/year. It's not stellar, but it's more than I'm making currently.
Peru, here I come!!!
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
It's not theft. It's use.
OSX is exactly the same thing as any non-coder who uses any OSS. It's NOT theft. It's NOT unethical. And, in fact, it's EXACTLY WHAT THE BSD FOLKS SEEM TO WANT!
OSS is (alledgely) about getting the best sofware, and being able to get support long after the creator dies. Not getting your agenda across. Not beating down the big guy. But getting THE BEST SOFTWARE POSSIBLE.
If Apple dies tomorrow (MS buys them and shuts them down 100%), everyone who has an Apple with OSX can continue to get support and updates from the OSS community--which is composed of people who, for the three goals of getting-something-that-works, ego-stroking, and philanthropy, donate their time to something that does not get them any direct fiscal payback.
But my main point is that the letter is just beautiful, even in translation; I really wish I read Spanish well enough to be able to read the original, because it must be wonderful. My favorite, by far:
Heehee.
I am not certain that neo-liberal international fora will agree with the Congressman's position. MS will say "we cannot sell to the public sector in Peru w/o having our IP expropriated" and I wouldn't be shocked if a WTO or FTAA tribunal was sympathetic.
I would be extremely surprised if MS isn't talking to USTR to apply pressure. MS is definitely not shy talking to USTR (think about US pressure on China to stop piracy) or about trying to get other countries laws changed (a la Sri Lanka).
that is the most succinct piece of clear thought
on open source and government i've ever read.
way to go!
SuSE is good at sorting your drivers out for you, and 8.0 has just come out with bleeding-edge goodies like KDE 3. I've got a bundle of odd bits of hardware and it makes a good stab at supporting everything known to Linux-land. It used to be better than RH from this point of view, but I don't know if that's still true with RH 7.3.
It also sorts out your partitions very conveniently, so overall there's a good chance you will be up and running quickly.
The translation of the Dr. Villanueva-Nuñez is so elegant, and the machine translations of the original MicroSoft letter so fish-fuddled, I decided to make a clean copy of the original letter (mostly by cutting and pasting from the good Congressman's reply).
My hope is that this way the apparent brain-deadedness of the babelfished text can be flensed away, revealing the true brain-deadedness of the arguments themselves in all their glory. ;)
San Isidro, March 21st 2002
Mr:
Edgar Villanueva Nuñez
Congressman of the Republic of Peru
Present.-
Dear sir:
First of all, we want to thank you for the chance you gave us to inform you about our work in this country for benefit of the public sector, always looking for the best ways to implement programs that will let us consolidate the initiatives of modernization and transparency in the State.
In fact, thanks to our meeting today you are aware of our global achievements at the international level in the design of new services for the citizen, within the framework of a model State that respects and protects intellectual property.
The actions we talked about are part of a global initiative, and today there exist several experiences which have let us collaborate with programs supporting the State and community in the adoption of technology as a strategic element impacting the quality of life of the citizens.
Furthermore, as arranged in this meeting, we assisted the forum organized in the Congress on March 6th regarding the law project that you are leading, wherein we got the chance to listen to several presentations which lead us now to explain our position so you have a wider grasp of the real situation.
The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution.
The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies, violating the base principles of the "Law of State Contracting and Aquisitions" (Number 26850)
So, by compelling the State to favour a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector.
The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties.
The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position.
It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truely beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time.
One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries.
In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (i) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (ii) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market.
The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place.
The bill demotivates the creativity of the peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that incentivates the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment.
Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry.
In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools.
If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?
I really want to thank you for your attention to this letter, and we want to reiterate our interest in meeting you to explain to you in more detail our point of view about the bill you have presented, and to be at your complete disposal to share experiences and information which we are sure can help better analyse and implement an initiative looking to modernization and transparency of the State for the benefit of the citizen.
Sincerely,
Juan Alberto González
General Manager
Microsoft Perú
You're right about technical awareness, but way out of line on corruption. A true cynic would say they're so clueless they don't even have the wit to enrich themselves, anyway most of our politicians are of relatively modest means and likely to stay that way. This gives some grounds for hope.
The real problem is that they haven't grasped the fundamentals of information ownership and management, relying instead on MS and its acolytes to tell them what policy should be because "government should learn from business". After all, they are successful and organizations like the CCTA (if they still exist) which are capable of giving an unbiased view have been marginalized.
You might find interesting this:
http://www.grulic.org.ar/proposicion
It's a site mostly about the similar law in Argentina. But in the references section you can find lots of law proposals like this one all over the world (one of them, in a Brazilian state, has been approved as a law).
Most of the site is dual language spanish/english (some parts not translated), so you should see it in English with a proper browser setup.
The Peruvian Bill is almost identical (was taken from, without modifications) to the Argentinian law proposal. I did a translation of that, and posted it here in slashdot back in 2001. You can read a translation at:
http://www.grulic.org.ar/proposicion/proyecto/leye s/904-D-02/
http://www.grulic.org.ar/proposicion/proyecto/leye s/904-D-02/texto_orig
(Set your browser language to english or spanish to view it in your favorite language).
I'm part of a similar initiative in Argentina (I'm not Peruvian) which is closely related, so I can tell you the story from here.
The Argentinian Free Software Law proposal has been around for more than a year now. You can read about it at http://www.grulic.org.ar/proposicion. It was written by a congressman and improved by a bunch of geeks on a mailing list who offered him (idelogical) support.
At some time in the middle, the Peruvian LUG found about it, liked it, and tried to find a Congressman there to do something similar (in fact, both law proposals are identical). They found Congressman Villanueva Nuñez.
Our group has contact with the Peruvians, and some people from here have travelled there to offer ideas, and even helped with the writing of this letter (yes, it takes some mistycism about it away but is true: geeks participated in the writing of the letter).
Hope that feeds your curiosity. You have lots of info at the site i noted above, and at the Peruvian LUG (slashdotted right now).
A webpage on the peruvian government, with info about the congressmen.
l la nueva.htm
1 /evilla nueva.htm
http://www.congreso.gob.pe/congresista/2001/evi
One of the links aboove lists the laws proposed by him, (the third small square picture). Then go to the first link and you find:
SOFTWARE:USO LIBRE EN ADMINISTRACIÓN PÚBLICA
(SOFTWARE: FREE USE ON PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION).
Full text here:
http://www.congreso.gob.pe/congresista/200
Besides, I know personally a lot of the people involved. It's quite real, not a hoax
You may not sue the Federal government. It's in the consitution.
They aren't too narrow, your monitor is too wide. If you just use a narrower monitor you'll be able to enjoy those horizontal scroll bars to your heart's content. Perhaps you can adapt an old oscilloscope, as I'm sure that a person of your tastes in raster aspect ratios is of course an absolute wizard in all technology-related matters.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
To further distance ourselves from any discussion of public policy in Peru, here is one more piece of information regarding sovereign immunity. The concept is not explicitly written into the constitution, it is an interpretation of the statement that the constitution is the supreme law of the land. I hope this clarifies the issue for you. I was a little disturbed when I first heard of this, too.
If you ever wonder if using Microsoft's product will actually "save you money", vs using Linux, wonder no more.
Please read the NEW "case study" published by Microsoft.
It's at
www.microsoft.com/business/casestudies/b2c/micr
Among interesting "facts" in the "case study", here is a little snapshot
"We wanted to offer additional Web-based applications for accessing detailed financial
data and communicating with our stores, but the lack of security and functionality in the
Linux platform meant we would have to develop everything from scratch."
"In March 2000, Hard Rock Cafe standardized on the Microsoft platform to lower its total cost of
ownership."
"Since we migrated to Windows 2000, we've been able to rapidly deliver the tools and applications
needed to reduce costs and streamline the way we do business."
"We've only had two developers working on our intranet--the same number we had working on the
Linux platform--and the Microsoft platform has enabled them to deliver upward of 50 applications
over the last year. We're definitely getting more results for our development dollars now."
"In the past, new menus required sending a large amount of materials to all our stores--
recipes, food display guidelines, and so on. Now that we can do this via our intranet, we're
saving upward of $20,000 per year for just this one task."
Since you have reached here, let me tell you that the "case study" by Microsoft is not something coming out of thin air. In fact, Microsoft has named names - in this case, Hard Rock Cafe (HRC).
The funny thing about the "case study" is the claim that using Windows 2000 HRC actually "saved" money !
And then the HRC's IT described Linux as suffering from "the lack of security and functionality" is indeed intriguing.
Digging some more on the thing and we find that the HRC IT department, under their Linux deployment, opted to have their ENTIRE network to run under ONE PASSWORD.
Yes, I kid you not. Read the article !
This only shows the "capabilities" and the "wisdom" of those working in HRC's IT department.
I too, am in the IT field, and I for one, am horrible at what those two HRC guys are doing. If I were their boss, they would have shown the door long, long time ago.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Are you familiar with the history of the oil, banana, and garment industries in Latin America? It is thick with big American corporations forcing poor countries to accept their terms, backed up by the US State Dept and sometimes the DoD. United Fruit (Chiquita) is the prototypical example of this, at one point it completely controlled Guatemala backed by US Marines. Even mainstream texts acknowledge this. Lets see there's also Argentina, Nicuragua, Cuba, El Salvador, Panama ...
The oil companies tend to be the most vicious historically, and I would be surprised if Microsoft was as bad as them anytime soon, look at how Colombia is now.
But those cerebral, "IP intense" industries surprise you with how vicious they can be. Look at the pharmaceutical industy, they got the US to file a WTO case against Brazil. This is after they refused to sell AIDS drugs in Brazil, so Brazil made their own and gave them away free to everyone who needed them resulting in them cutting their mortality rate due to AIDS in half. This is what the US pharma industry wanted to stop and they were successful in getting the US government to go to bat for them. But, your point is also bourne out, part of the reason the US backed off is that the issue did get into the press.
But can we sue the individual States at least?