Slashdot Mirror
Indian State Switches to Linux
pamri writes "In a pleasant and surprising move, the Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, has opted to switch to Linux from Microsoft for its Gyandooth (intranet in Dhar district connecting rural cybercafes catering to the everyday needs of the masses) programme. What is more surprising is that the state's Chief Minister Digvijay Singh personally conveyed this to Bill Gates. A choice quote: 'For us it is not a question of Microsoft versus Linux. It is just a matter of choosing between a free software and a monopoly. We feel that when we are putting public information out in the open, then it should not be through a proprietary software.'"
Most of the cybercafes in India are used primarily to send email (hotmail, yahoo, rediffmail, etc.) Some are used for chatting (simple messenger programs). For lots of online games, or "fancy pr0n", the cafes simply don't have enough bandwidth.
For simple things like getting info on web, web based email, and simple chatting, no difference between linux and windows.
S
First paragraph. Third sentence.
Chief minister Digvijay Singh personally conveyed this to Microsoft boss Bill Gates during an interaction last week in New Delhi.
Ah...have you seen any Indian cybercafe...I am yet to see one in India running any of the games you mentioned.
Microsoft doesnt raid Indian software blackmarket as they do in Taiwan and Malaysia because they need the next generation of Indian techies to practice and understand its products. And this means a wide availability of all the Windows flavors in most of the towns.
Plus a computer you can get for Rs.30000 and upwards and if you are asking for Rs.10000 (around US$200) for an OS no one is going to buy that.
This is the reason cybercafes are running XP/2000, not because of games.
Tat Tvam Asi
Even if Office is the best productivity suite available, is it so much better that it is worth the extra cost of the software and the O/S needed to run it?
Damn skippy it would be. Remember, companies don't use OS's, they use applications. This is why SGI used to be so successful even though their stuff was ungodly expensive compared to other solutions, they provided tools to let people get done what they needed to get done in the best way possible. Hell, if you could get your hands on a piece of software that made you 25% more efficient at doing your job (of course this is in absolutely no way implying that office does this, this is just a generalzation), wouldn't you sink an extra $500 to acquire it? In a heartbeat you would.
The main point being that in the end, the OS don't mean squat, its the apps that run on it. "Minor" cost variances in the OS doesn't save you much in the long term if you can't get the apps that will help you do your job better. This is why M$ dominates on the desktop, but is losing more ground in the server room, Windoze is a desktop oriented OS, Linux is (was) not. Linux makes inroads in the server space because the applications available more readily lend themselves to that.
How do you figure? We've all encountered the fact that MSFT products just aren't documented or the documentation is inadequate or just plain wrong. We've all encountered mysterious Blue Screens of Death. We've all encountered Windows 95 and 98 machines that are dying of cruft buildup. We've all encountered "magic" GUI applications that don't have a command line counterpart. We've all encountered installs that require reboots (I had to reboot my Win2K box just to upgrade AIM recently). Just reasoning from first principles, I can say that administering an number of Linux machines will be easier than administering the same number of Windows machines - the admin won't have to physically show up at a linux machine unless something is really wrong with it.
Very honestly, I think that administering a number of Linux machines (number greater than 5) will end up easier and cheaper than the same number of Windows machines.
I'd love to see some "plain economics" rebutting this. As near as I can tell, real information that exists contradicts your position:
I'm calling "FUD" on your position.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
I've been using Linux a long time, and as far as I know, the statement "linux had journaling filesystems before NT" is absolutely, utterly false. NT 3.51 had journaling.
Linux didn't have journaling in the mainstream kernel until the ext3 patches were accepted. You could probably have gotten some journaling under Linux with manual patching and installation of beta software in the NT 4.0 timeframe, but I don't believe the mainstream distros offered journaled filesystems until after Windows 2000 shipped.
Further, NTFS is extremely robust and resilient. It's EXTREMELY unusual to lose data from an NTFS partition. Compare that to reiserfs, which has had many, many, many problems over the years. (I believe it is considered stable now.)
Admittedly, to some degree, NT *had to* have a great filesystem, because it was unstable. And Linux could get away with the horrid ext2 filesystem because the OS was so reliable that the filesystem was very rarely shut down incorrectly.
But, regardless, NTFS got journaling and ACL's really *right* long, long ago. Between the two features, it's a lot better than anything Linux offers (yet). Linux is improving rapidly, but filesystems and permissions are core NT strengths and should not be casually dismissed.