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."

Comments

All I care about is the research

[Dark Paladin]

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).

Re:All I care about is the research

[ryanvm]

I usually use the GPL for projects that I do. That said, there is a time and a place for BSD-like licenses.

The Internet as we know it would probably not be the inexpensive and vast resource that it is today were it not for BSD licensed software (Berkley's TCP/IP stack springs to mind).

I want that research GPL'ed so that I know its available, that I, as a tax payer [...] gets the benifits, and that it can be made even better by the world (and thus can help my government/business/etc).

All of the demands that you have listed can just as easily be met by the BSD. The fact that Microsoft used Berkley's TCP/IP stack didn't make it vanish from the face of the Earth.

Like I said, I prefer to use the GPL license, but I'm not so righteous that I demand everyone else do so as well. Free software is supposed to be about MORE choice, not LESS.

Re:All I care about is the research

[Perdo]

The GPL ensures works or derivitaves STAY FREE.

BSD and Proprietary licences ensure works or derivatives BECOME or STAY UNFREE.

Using public money to create works or derivatives that become or stay unfree is ridiculous.

There is no place for BSD or any other Proprietary licencing scheme where MY MONEY is concerned.

It really pisses me off to pay for something twice. Once by taxation for the reasearch to create a resource and again for that same resource at retail.

Fucking corperate welfare. Drugs. Software. Commercial Space Launch. Alternative Energy. Agribusiness. Cheap Oil Royalties. Commercial Use highways.

Microsoft uses the BSD TCP/IP stack for free, then sells it to us. Any Taxpayer sponsored research should NEVER use a BSD style licence. If a corporation benefits from my tax dollars, They should not be able to sell the fruits of that research back to me for profit.

Re:I pledge allegiance to Microsoft. . .

[og_sh0x]

You forgot "indivisible." Windows isn't modular, remember? :)

Re:I wonder.

[anshil]

> Do they it 'cos they see the benefits of open source or are they just anti-USian ?
> Like the "evil NSA key windows backdoor" rubbish.
> I doubt they would ditch Windows if it was produced by a company of their own.

And what if it would be that way?

As an european country I would find it hard to rely internal security soly on an american company. What if there is a bug, country XYZ can't do anything about it until some guy in the USA fixes it. Now what if the software would be used for something important? And what if we just would have diplomatic problems because of a embargo of product X? (maybe about cars, fuel, meat, who know what...)

It should be the same reason why we europeans or any other country can't use the GPS for anything important. (like i.e. steering the trains with it)
Here the situation is quite obvious. GPS can be turned of with a switch in the USA. Yes GPS is useable as comfortable add-on but non USA countries can never rely on it. Thats why the EU is planning to do it's own positing system, not because it's better than GPS, but we will be able to rely on it.

Same goes for software, a non USA country can not safely use unexchangeable parts like microsoft products for anything important. It's always important to have at least two possible sources for a product, if not more. And windows fills this requirement not.

Okay for the non-geeks, why does OpenSource software fill this need? You still don't have more than one source, _but_ you get all the construction plans with the software, plus the right to actually use them. As a country in time of need you are able to fix possible problems yourself.

The left hand should speak to the right hand...

[Soko]

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

Re:Tax dollars should not buy Microsoft products

[ChaosDiscordSimple]

Nor should tax dollars be spent on Bic pens, or Bostitch staplers, or Lockheed jets, or any other product built by an evil moneygrubbing company!

That's not a fair generalization. The government can easily switch to another brand of pen, stapler, or jet without worrying interoperatibility with a existing supplies of paper or the existing air traffic control system. There aren't alot of security issues for a government office using a monoculture of Bic and Bostitch. The government is free to disassemble any pens, staplers, or jets they buy to search it for spying devices, attempt to repair problems, hire a third party to hire problems, or customize the products for their use. There isn't alot of risk of a license audit coming from Bic, Bostitch, or Lockheed.