Slashdot Mirror
Namibia Says "No Thanks" To Microsoft Donation With Strings
The Register posted an update about Namibia's SchoolNet, Microsoft "donations", and what looks like Namibia final decision. Apparently, MS's "donated" contributions would have been so small (and would have required such a large investment in OS licenses), that SchoolNet Namibia found it wasn't even worth bothering with. A very interesting article.
In my ideal world, people throughout Africa, India, and Asia learn and become comfortable with open-source software. Then, US corporations get sick of dealing with Microsoft's heavy-handed business practices, and finally decide to switch to open-source alternatives. Where can they find qualified employees? Surprise, the "third world", where people have been using OSOSs (open-source OSs) since they were children. This, my friends, is globalization. I'm tempted to move to Africa to unionize their computer professionals.
On stereophonic equipment, the monaural sound obtained through multiple channels will enhance your listening pleasure.
Judging from this example it would appear that the obscenely rich Beast intends to use non-profit organizations in desperately poor countries to subsidize its promotional ambitions and its sales strategy.
This article mentioned something on the order of 20 *refurbished* PCs to 5 schools (100 used PCs + 5 new servers). Given that PC prices are so relatively low (I've recently put together an Athlon XP1800+ based PC for under $400) It's amazing that a billion dollar corporation is so insanely profit driven that they can't even do something out of *good will*. It must become a profit opportunity. I don't know what level of PCs these are, but the local computer show often has Pentium 233MMX machines, AMD K62/500s and similar for under $100 for the complete machine (memory, disk, cdr).
This is precisely the reason I don't use M$ products. I started using Linux for purely practical reasons, but now it's almost equally philosophical.
The donation was for a usability aspect. The school couldn't afford what they were asking for. Rather than donate the OS, Microsoft chose to donate the office suite, meaning the school would have to buy the OS anyway. Yes, Microsoft didn't have to donate anything, but the fact that they were offering smething fundamentally useless to the school (they couldn't afford to run the software) shows something.
Now lets hope the money they saved from not having to buy windows licenses goes to help starving african children. In poor countries, every penny counts, and using linux could actually save enough money to feed a village for a year.
GoatPigSheep, the 3 most important food groups
Greatly disliking Microsoft is one thing, but posting blatant propaganda that looks like it was written by a 12 year old on a 'news' site is not helping anything. The best they can do is make the entire anti-Microsoft cause look like it's run by a bunch of snivelling brats addicted to counterstrike.
This is an actual line from the article: "Now imagine the disappointment of learning that accepting the 'gift' would entail outlays of money in the range of fifteen times the value of the M$ Trojan horse."
Slashdot editors: In the interest of maintaining the integrity of the slashdot community (if there's any left...) please don't post propaganda as 'news.' It erodes the value of the community. It makes us no better than Microsoft and in the end. It is counterproductive. The Register should be spanked badly for this.
communist thieves who could care less about open source
First off, "communist thieves" is an oxymoron, and communists would likely strongly support open source.
A more accurate assessment of the Namibian government would be "thugs giving land and money to their cronies and starving the rest".
It's not just about that.
Microsoft wants it's foot in the door by donating Office. These people are working on a small budget, and absolutely cannot afford the infrastructure needed to even USE that software. It's hardly a "gift".
Given the amounts of money MS rolls out, if MS wanted a foot in the door in Nambibia, they could easily afford to network & outfit the entire country's school system.. THEN they would surely listen.
Maybe.
i find it very funny indeed that countries who have in a way been "behind" technologically have had the unique opportunity to see how the market played out before they were able to enter it.
:)
:)
it seems they were watching closely, and made some very good decisions
this sort of factual and witty approach to eroding M$'s façade of being a people-oriented company (to use the politest terms i know of to describe the lecherous and filthy backstabbing techniques that have become the hallmark of their business practice) could very well pursuade governments all over the globe, even those that have, due to misfortune, been into the technology game the whole time - and playing happily by M$'s rules.
and as a side note, did any of you check out Math Boxing? great little game
The Register should be spanked badly for this.
Is it so bad that The Register makes their takes on stories so obvious, and makes fun of things they believe are amazingly stupid? That's what I've always liked about them; they don't pretend not to have a viewpoint, and it's quite obvious what their views are. It's really easy to read past that, and it's often funny even when I don't agree with them.
Seems to me The Register wouldn't be who they are without ripping on people once in a while (every day), so I'd say you should choose to read them or not, and not worry about things like that.
I think it is important to at least consider the % of one's icome or worth to figure how charitable one is being. Bill can give away a billion dollars as easily as one of us pays for a weekend out of town. Would it change his life in the slightest? Also, many of us question the way he came into those riches -- that monopoly thing.
Considering how much more he has than he could possibly use, and the PR problems he faces, I view his charity with some skepticism, as much as I welcome it. (Yes, he could do nothing, but we don't have to flatter him for merely being more than a complete Scrooge.)
Maybe there are too measures of charity -- how much good it does for others, and how much good it does your soul.
All that aside, what MS did in the present discussion sounds like just plain old bad attitude, not parsimony.
Of course, it's also known that many of Bill's & Microsoft's "charitable" donations are in fact calculated exercises to buy good PR. It's certainly true that it does in fact do some good, but as yet, all indications are they've never done anything they didn't perceive to be in their own interests, and that includes the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and all its "good works."
When struggling countries like Namibia are motivated to avoid Microsoft, the same motivations are coming soon to a computer near you.
We all know it is possible to use Linux as an alternative to Microsoft. Most of us are accustomed to tolerating the Microsoft OS in order to get the functionality of their office apps. As time goes by, Linux has narrowed the gap to the point where the most cost-conscious users (schools and government) are ready to jump ship. The next wave will be home users, then small business, ultimately big business.
Ironically, conquering the piracy problem is what got the ball rolling. If Microsoft turned a blind eye toward piracy in certain key markets, they could have prevented Linux from establishing market share. Sure, they need to collect money from those who have money, but they also need to give away product to anyone who can't or won't pay. If you can't get the customer's money, you have to at least stop them from using the competitor's product.
Microsoft talks a good game about dealing with Linux as a competitor, but look at their actions. Higher prices, "software assurance", increasingly obnoxious EULA's, all the things they might be expected to do if there was no competition. The handwriting is on the wall -- time for Bill to cash in his chips and retire.
I guessing you also had to pay tuition... How much was that?
Don't get me wrong... I'm sure you probably paid much less for that software than you would've otherwise... But I highly doubt that your total cost was only $25. Universities pay a lot for those Microsoft campus agreements, and the money they pay for it with comes from somewhere, either your tuition/fees, or your tax dollars. (unless a rich Alumni/'Partner'/etc. donated the money, then you may be off the hook, and getting a deal)
"... the advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy" - Janov Pelorat
This is just an example of how Microsoft is ignoring all morals and what is right just to earn some money. Although this is an isolated case, their "Office XP for students" is a much more broad case of how M$ manages to ignore morals to earn money. Sure, it's cheaper than regular Office, but that's not saying much, as regular Office is already ludicrously expensive. The student edition costs well over 100 US dollars. Let me get this straight - something THIS expensive was intended for students? And this is considered amnesty? I find it disgusting.
Sure, there are other packages out there for students that cost a lot, like Mathematica, which has a student edition that costs the same as Office for students, but the regular edition is well over several thousand dollars. Consider that in a ratio. Moreover, while the essential features of Office have been claimed by other word processors, Mathematica is unparalleled in functionality by any other calculation package in existance.
In conclusion, this is predictable old Microsoft behavior - overlooking almost all morals, disguising it as an act of charity, while earning massive amounts of profit.
The article you posted does not support your assertion.
What is being proposed is forcible redistribution of land from white farmers to black farmers with compensation being paid to the white farmers.
Granted, this may or may not be a bad idea, but it hardly amounts to "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide."
Neither does it amount to communism, as in that system all the land would be owned collectively. They are proposing to settle individual families onto this land. Hence: not communism.
Lastly, you are trying to ignore the historical context of how this land was obtained. Do you really expect the native black farmers to ignore how all the fertile land was monopolized by Europeans at the beginning of the last century?
I'd say they are being a lot nicer than the Germans were when they were taking the land.
Your post is inflammatory and just plain wrong.
The only reason all cover-ups appear to fail is that you never hear about the ones that succeed.
Except that this donation doesn't cost Microsoft a penny more than the trivial cost of media. Schools in Namibia could never afford to buy Microsoft software anyway so it's not like Microsoft is losing anything by giving them this "gift". Even if Microsoft gave them a complete suite of Windows-equipped software including the OS for every one of those computers Microsoft would still come out ahead because of the gains in PR and goodwill for the company, and the exposure of all those kids to Microsoft's brand and products. So everyone would win because MS is getting good publicity and exposure by doing something that doesn't cost them anything but greatly benefits the public of Namibia. That's what corporate philantropy should be like.
But, Microsoft wanted more. They wanted to turn this into a sales opportunity as well and grab a chance to lock even some of the world's poorest into their exploitative upgrade cycles. Make no mistake, if these people had taken this deal, all that money would be pure profit for MS.
So, really, MS has no interest in making actual donations - they really just want to milk everyone while making it look like they are making a meaningful contribution. This "gift" was nothing more than a sleazy sales tactic and I'm glad that Nambia isn't "buying" into it.
Assuming the best case scenario where the school system asked for a donation and Microsoft offered a $2000 discount on what would be a $11,000 package, whoever was in charge of drafting that deal should have known that the offer was going to be refused. A nation that poor can't afford usual Microsoft prices.
In short, Microsoft made a very dumb decision making that sort of offer. As someone else said, it's like giving a homeless person asking for a meal a fifty cent coupon off a five dollar meal. Yes, you owe the homeless person absolutely nothing but making that sort of offer is verging on an insult, and at the very least is showing incredible stupidity.
If Microsoft had to give $2000 in free software, why not make it a smaller number of Office/Window packages? Instead of offering just Office or just Windows offer a smaller combination of both. Of course that still skips support costs and so likely would have been tossed out but hey...
In any case, it's not hard to see why Linux is becoming increasingly popular in third world nations. In those places you practically expect Microsoft to start promoting piracy of its software just to keep Linux from becoming more entrenched.
why do they want .doc or .ppt at CSUN?
/. about Microsoft making a deal with a college that would require every student to take a course in .NET or C# (I forgot which).
CSU-Microsoft Campus Enterprise Agreement (CEA). I really love this line: "A distinct advantage to the campus enterprise agreement is that it does not require any exclusivity whatsoever. CSU faculty, staff, and students have the option to use any software they want" because the next sentence says: "Microsoft accepted this type of agreement because two-thirds of the CSU campuses endorsed Microsoft Office products as their campus-wide standard".
The office XP is only avilable at the $20 price because 2/3rds of the schools in the system are going to force 100% Microsoft monopoly on their students. I'm sure the situation at the other 1/3rd is going to be almost as bad. If you enforce a zero tolerance policy of against Microsoft competitors then you get a deep discount (more like a bribe). It's not Microsoft using anti-competitive tactics, it's the schools doing it! (chuckle)
Not that the school officials care too much about how much the students pay for Office XP, I'm sure the deal saved at least a few thousand dollars for the administrative offices.
There was a recent article on
Disclaimer: I don't know jack about CSUN, I just did a google on microsoft CSUN and it was all in the first link.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
As far as I know, there is nowhere that MS Office only costs $20. Here at UNC-Chapel Hill, I can pay $20 for the "media duplication costs" at the Student Stores to get a copy of Office.
UNC, however, ponies up several hundred thousand dollars every year to pay for the site license that lets me do that. Sure, I don't pay for a license at the checkout counter: students pay for it in their tuition and departments see it paid for out of the university IT budget -- which I'd rather see spent on infrastructure than on pushing MS software!
Life is short: void the warranty.
Well, that, plus another couple billion in the R&D to actually develop it, but hey, we can't count that, right?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.