Slashdot Mirror
Countries Ponder: GNU/Linux vs. Microsoft
koody writes: "IDG has an overview of how many countries are getting drawn into the debate over the relative merits of using open source software rather than Microsoft Corp.'s Windows applications. Seems like many countries would be slowly moving towards the open source community, while a few still pledge allegiance to Microsoft."
And Microsoft is expensive. If they don't want to get in trouble with Microsoft (and their friends in the US Government), then really it becomes their only choice. If they have some tech-savvy people who know linux and such, it's an even easier choice. In some cases, it's cheaper to pay local people to learn the open source stuff than it is to pay Microsoft or other companies for software and support.
Even for richer countries, open source is attractive because it means the money that would've gone into software purchases can go into other projects.
this is so stupid. People will use whatever software that best fits their needs..choosing one thing simply because of some set belief that one is superior is dumb and p0intless.
I really don't care what government decides to waste its money on (after all, if it wasn't software, it would be gold toilet seats).
But I do care when government sponsored research into software is used by companies to make money. Last I checked, I didn't give Sun/MS/et all my tax dollars to make them richer. I want that research GPL'ed so that I know its available, that I, as a tax payer who paid for the R&D gets the benifits, and that it can be made even better by the world (and thus can help my government/business/etc).
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Microsoft probably loves the idea, but I cringe at the statement about "taxpayer dollars".
If an Open Source option is available, tax money would be better spent using/improving those products, that benefit all, instead of a single organization declared to be a monopoly by the U.S. DOJ.
As much as I despise Microsoft I have been unwilling to recommend anything other than Windows or MacOS to my friends and family.
...
I honestly feel that I may be able to recommend open source software to non-geeks in the near future. I'm using OpenOffice and Mozilla and both are holding up well -- indeed OpenOffice is less annoying than MSOffice 2000.
I think if UnitedLinux and Red Hat can just make that final turn into providing MacOSX like reliability then I will start recommending Linux and Macs and tell everybody to avoid Windows like the plague it is.
Sooooooo close
the relative merits of using open source software rather than Microsoft Corp.'s Windows applications
Uh, there are more than two options in the world of operating systems. I'm assuming that everyone here has heard of small companies like Apple and Sun, who seem pretty effective at marketing their own OSes.
(Yeah, I know, they both fund some open source efforts too. But this whole "everything is either Microsoft or free-as-in-lint" dichotomy is too simple for anyone but retarded schoolchildren.)
--saint
It's under attack for it's business practices here and abroad. It's FUD is not swaying many decision makers anymore and their "terrorist gambit" is not panning out as planned.
Because M$ has never been known as a service company it really has no model to fit into the Open Source idea. Since it has no direct way of benefiting, other than stealing code for use in their own products, they have to fight against it's upsurgence
M$ will move into the arena of small commercial packages, proprietary embedded systems and OS's and will fight tooth and nail the entire way. Of course the argument that they stabalized and helped build the current computer industry is partially correct, but had open standards been used to begin with (and not the embrace and extend crap) we might have a much more competetive landscape.
Knowledge is of two kinds. We know a subject ourselves, or we know where we can find information upon it. -Samuel Johns
.... isn't one of supporting open source because it's good for your life-long karma, but having someone to hold the end-user's hand when something goes tits-up.
Microsoft comes in a pretty package, and is so widely used, that someone in a given setting is bound to have experience with it.
It's not that open source is or isn't better than MS, but which one gives the user (not the IT guys) a warm fuzzy.
Government administrators should note that it is their duty to insure that all government work be done on completely open systems. The citizens and taxpayers of a democracy must have full access to all documents, even 40 or a hundred years from now. There is NO room in a democracy for proprietary, hidden ways of doing things.
What we need is not a better monoculture, but a polyculture (is that a word?) In a polyculture, one company (MS) can't create a format that's impossible for anyone else to implement properly and expect it to be widely used, because users will EXPECT interoperability. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. By the same token, in a polyculture you have many different products that foster true innovation. I mean ... as much as office sucks, some parts of it have been truly innovative (some parts of Outlook, Excel.)
Hell, in a monoculture half the time software isn't compatible with its previous version (think Office 95 vs. office 97.)
I wouldn't want any government to mandate *one* operating system. Instead, I think that governments should mandate operating system diversity. That's the way to get true, robust reliability and ultimately save money.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
instead of a single organization declared to be a monopoly by the U.S. DOJ.
Read the Constitution. It's called an Electoral College. It ensures equal representation among the seperate states.
Did you notice how much won states by something like 2-1?
Remove your head from your ass and stop listening to Dan Rather. You fucking idiot.
Democracy = Rule By the People United States = Democracy More people vote for gore than bush in the US Bush wins Anyone else confused?
The US is not actually a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Gore even agreed: he campaigned with the electoral system in mind. Want to change it? Fine. Just don't do it to undo the results of an election that did not go the way you want it to. Change the system before the next election if you want to. Only losers play the game under the rules and then whine to change the rules after they lose.
I am surprised at the low number of developing countries especially African countries. They are the countries which really NEED to use free software. But in my experience they are the ones least likely to. Too bad the big companies have already targetted these countries and the free software movement has no real marketing marketing strategy for these countries.
Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think Mr. Gore...
In all seriousness it is true that the Republicans do favor business more than the Democrats. But that does NOT mean that they don't like open source software. How Bush decided to influence the Microsoft case has nothing to do with his opinion on Open Source Software. Nor is the inverse true, Democrates don't all use Open Source Software...
Now if you believe that any political party doesn't listen strongly to their big political backers then you are a fool. Every party does! The Republicans are no different with this issue.
As far as BIG CAMPAIGNS... anyone who runs for President is going to have a huge campaign.
As far as the SUPREME COURT... they really didn't decide the election, Gore just took their decision and gave up. The outcome would have been the same no matter which way the decision came down. It just would have taken longer.
The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
But I do care when government sponsored research into software is used by companies to make money.
Actually, quite the opposite is true. In the real world, real people have to charge real money for the products they peddle. Most GPL'ed software comes out of government labs [like JPL], or educational institutions [like MIT, or CMU] that are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. If Dubyah and Congress really gave a rat's ass, they'd require all government funded software to be released under the BSD license, not the GPL.
Or I can take the software and use it in my business instead of paying the $$$ for development, I can contribute to it to make it better (and use other people's contributions for the same).
Now that $$$ I'm *not* spending on development can be spent on more employees, admins, maybe even a developer just to get in the pieces I need.
IT Depts usually do not *make* money, they *save* companies money, increase efficiency, and safeguard/provide data. Just because I don't *sell* a product doesn't mean that my *service* isn't just as valuable - or just as marketable.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
Are we on the same page? Speaking the same language? In the same gene pool?
As per hardware company with an OS on top: Sun has Sparc + Solaris, and weren't going to continue Solaris for x86 *until* a surprise release of v9 for x86.
Apple has Mac + OS X, and *do* have an up to date Darwin for x86 though it's limited through driver support to a select hardware platform.
Neither is trying particularly hard to push their OSes without their hardware; both have x86 for development and testing purposes.
As per wanting the Mac OS: How do you compare Java, a runtime, programming language, and a set of libraries, with an OS? Apple has Cocoa, otherwise known as Objective C, and it doesn't run *everywhere*, but it does run on Solaris 8, Windows 2000 (x86), and Mac OS X.
So what are you trying to point out? That Sun supports more platforms with it's variation of cross platform computing? That Macs are more hardware oriented than Sun? That x86 support is the end all and be all of 'effective'?
GPL Deconstructed
Whoa! Bill should pay attention to what his marketdriods say. To wit:
Austria:
One of Microsoft's flagship government customers, the Federal Ministry of the Interior in Austria, is the first government body in Europe to become a member of Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative. As part of the program, the Austrian government is allowed access to the Windows XP source code. Program benefits, according to Microsoft, include better understanding of the technical underpinnings of the operating system, better protection against security vulnerabilities and a resource for writing custom applications.
*blink* Wha...? *blink*
Microsoft admits - in full view of the world - that having access to the source improves the security and useability of an Operating System. Didn't some two bit think tank outfit just say that having access to the source was bad?
That's a keeper if there ever was one - Microsoft just made the case for Free Software in spite of itself.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
This idg overview is extremely undetailed and not very useful. With several countries, like Denmark, it didn't cover all the Linux activities going on. The German parliament is actually going to use Linux on their servers, and their focus on multiple vendors in government IT spending isn't mentioned.
"Snapshots from the OS front" is actually a precise description of the content.
Peru is not moving towards any single OS. That is exactly what they DONT want. And it isn't really about the money for them either, though I'm sure that factors in. What they want is control over their own IT, and that means an open source so that you are not dependant on any one company. That doesn't block out Microsoft. Microsoft can certainly compete to serve Peru, but they must open the source on whatever they offer.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.
Actually certain versions of Office 2K has Activation...after 50 uses of the software, it will shut down and tell you to activate the software. From what I understand it is easier to fool this version of activation than Office XP's version, but it's activation nonetheless.
It's actually Office 97 that you don't have to activate. Funny, it's very hard to find that at the computer fairs nowadays...;-)
Microsoft made its monopoly on easy-to-pirate software. If anything, they should loosen, rather than tighten, their "security". Get them another raftload of more hooked users.
set irony mode off.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
Companies don't need to act like they own a bit of software to re-use it in a modular fashion. There is infact nothing keeping all publically funded source code from remaining open while simultaneously being exploited by commercial interests. The only thing the Copyleft actually prevents is the easy creation of slightly incompatible interfaces with little or no investment on the part of the would-be Robber Baron.
Those of us that have actually moved out into the world realize this. Most "code for profit" companies actually depend a great deal on code and modules that they can't merely steal and treat as their own property.
To most coding shops, dealing with the LGPL is no more burdensome than dealing with Microsoft licenses.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It is a standard that defines the expectation of people receiving software products from a company.
There is a ton of variety in the world of GNU/Linux with a multitude of different vendors competing for the attention of Linux users. It is, in fact, the monoculture that Microsoft causes its products to exist in (by making interopability as difficult as possible) that is at the root of the discontent we are seeing around the world that is shifting the momentum away from Microsoft.
In fact, open source is the opposite of what you argue. By following standards, open source guarantees its users they will continue to have choices.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
I live in Brazil and Conectiva, leader in the (tiny) local market of Linux, got a great contract with the Navy to develop VPNs and things like that. The militaries wanted to make sure the software they were installing didn't have any secret tricks planted by alien governments (yes, these guys build a career out of paranoia feelings).
In some cases OSS can be cheaper, if you can pick in the internet a robust project with many contributors from around the world. But in other cases it can be more expansive, eg, if you can buy a closed source software off-the-shelf but choose to develop and open source program.