FT on Europe's Open Source Option

Anonymous Coward writes "The Financial Times offers a very interesting read about Linux, its possibilities for business, and its threat to Microsoft. Also a second article about "Europe's open-source option"."

Comments

Problem with the article:

[Gentoo Fan]

Developed by Stallman, the so-called general public licence attached to Linux forces anyone who modifies the system to make the modification freely available to others.

Only if you REDISTRIBUTE the binaries as well! This makes it sound like any in-house change must be published.

Re:Problem with the article:

[rseuhs]

Alright, let's ignore the existence of the LGPL and pretend it didn't exist.

Asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base?" is like asking "What happens to my company when we don't pay licensing fees to MS?"

It's just part of the rules. And be assured, it's a lot easier to make sure not to use GPLed code in in-house apps than to make sure no employee has somewhere installed some unlicensed software. (Which can cost the company hundreds of thousands)

Also, all the GPL violations have been solved by either removing the code (rewriting it) or opening up the whole. So if you don't want to open up you just need to do what you should have done from the beginning: Write it yourself. The risks involved in breaking the GPL are minimal, especially because there won't be any damages claims. Also, when it is about an in-house app anyway, what's the big deal in opening it up?

Micorosft's license, on the other hand, is enforced, there are audits and huge fines.

Anybody asking "What happens to our software if we use GPL-software as base" is either:

• An idiot still not understanding the GPL, the difference between GPL and LGPL and in this case also not understanding licneses in general
• A MCSE, MSFT-stockholder or somebody else who will lose very much with the decline of Microsoft, happily willing to spread any FUD about any non-Microsoft product.
• A troll

Very good to see

[Achmed Swaribabu]

I think that the EU has traditionally been more open minded to open the source technologies than the USian people have been, by my judgment.

We have been doing much work for lots of private industrial companies all over Europe by make the modfications to FreeBSD and Gnu/Linux kernel for years and just now starting to see jobs from the USA.

Oh too, to make a clarification, most of our work has been on FreeBSD (my specialty actually) because we recommend it for companies because of the more flexible license, but we like the work on Gnu/Linux too.

This article was mentioned on BBC World's

[mijok]

World Business Report this morning. Very good indeed that Linux gets more and more publicity among businesspeople too.

More on Linux in the FT's Lex column...

[dipfan]

Apart from the big Linux piece highlighted, the paper's Lex column carred a note on Linux as well today (it was in the dead tree edition - the online bit is subscription only.)

To explain, the Lex column is a very influential daily piece of analysis, read by the financial world's movers and shakers (mainly in the UK). I'd quibble about a few points - MS's Office franchise is (financially) secure? Linux suffers from "real security issues"? Nonsense. Anyway, for review purposes, here the piece:

"Technology investors should be thinking long and hard about Linux. The free, open source operating system has moved beyond the beard and sandals stage and is no longer just an option for bleeding-edge early adopters and those theologically opposed to Microsoft. Linux, whose mascot is a cuddly penguin, has developed teeth. The technology has emerged as a credible alternative for corporate IT departments and is winning significant share in the $200bn server market.
"Sun, Hewlett-Packard and IBM - which have traditionally marketed high-margin Unix equipment and software - are among those that have suffered from Linux's growing popularity. All three have seen the writing on the wall and have begun supporting Linux, but the transition from Unix, with proprietary hardware and software, will be painful.
"For the moment, Microsoft has not been overly affected by Linux's rise. Open source software is unlikely to gain even a foothold in personal computer operating systems, so Microsoft's $10bn Windows monopoly remains impregnable. Its $8.8bn Office franchise is equally secure.
"Nonetheless, Microsoft cannot be complacent. The long-term threat to its $6.5bn server business is real. Microsoft's model has been low price, high volume, but for the first time it is being undercut on price. It can argue that Linux suffers from real security issues that are only now emerging and that the operating system has a tendency to fragment, making it difficult to ensure applications' reliability. But it has a real marketing battle on its hands."

Couple of errors...

[MosesJones]

Europe has 50+ years of co-operation, and a history of it. Not everyone together, but a history of country alliances.

WWII, France, UK, Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark etc.

WWI, France, UK

The Brits and the Dutch used to have alliances against the French and the Spanish. The Germans and Austrians are pretty pally, lots of parts of Europe used to be owned by other countries, e.g. most of France by England, Alsace by Germany etc etc.

The Napoleonic wars were everyone v Napoleon. The Crimea was Brit and France v Russia.

In terms of the European defence industry being a joke, pretty harsh. Look at the contracts the US Goverment awards and look at the sub-contractors, Thales, Bae, Rolls-Royce are most often there.

Violent Crime in terms of rape and murder is MILES lower in Europe than the US. Muggings et al are higher, so we have unhappy people who live, and the US has unhappy relatives of people who died.

This isn't bloody American bashing, its laying out how Europe likes to co-operate to compete with the US Globalisation plan. Its a clash of cultures, each has their advantages and disadvantages.

Europe knows that the US is the biggest fish in the pond, but it also knows (to its cost) that being the biggest fish doesn't give you the right to dictate as you only get embarressed by what you did 100 years later.

WWI was started because the empire building powers thought that you could still fight a war from the 1800s with technology in the 1900s and that having plebs shot wasn't a very bad thing. Europe learnt alot from having tens of thousands of people die in a day.

Namely War does actually suck.