Slashdot Mirror
Brazil Mandates Shift to Free Software
truthsearch writes "LinuxToday is reporting news and a response about Brazil making Open Source mandatory for 80% of all computers in state institutions and businesses, setting up a 'Chamber for the Implementation of Software Libre.'" This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
Your luggage is ready, sir.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Terry Gilliam must be happy.
In Soviet Russia, beowulf clusters imagine YOU!
I'm sure they won't be happy about this. After all, they are enemies of freedom (as in free software)... do I smell a buncha terrorists?
I'm glad I live here... :)
time to shift those POS win boxen... to something free...
I for one, welcome our new hot grits... PROFIT!
He's parachuting into Brazil with a few steamer trunks of cash to do his famous "persuading"!
Making this mandatory, in my opinion, goes against everything that open source stands for - choice. To not keep choices as free as possible to choose whatever is the best solution - be it proprietary or open - defeats the entire purpose of the choice open source provides.
The 'best tool' term can always be used to fit whatever system you're trying to push. If you're talking about desktop systems, there's always a reason that Windows is the best tool.
If, on the other hand, you are interested in making a change and making people aware of the choice out there, then yes it probably needs to be mandated - what the Government is saying is that it is more important that we have control over our software than features, necessarily. That's 'best tool', but more of a long-term view..
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
What, are you new around here or something?
Brazil's not exactly overflowing with cash at the moment. A tool that does 90% of the job for free is better than a tool that does 100% of the job but that you can't afford to purchase.
This is a big win even for Windows based software, such as OpenOffice and other desktop OSS software. And what about OSS server based software? That too.
[i]It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.[/i]
I don't think so. I think the main thing here is that stuff needs to be cheap (Brazil's a poor country), and has to be able to do the job - not necessaraly in the best way possible. FS is definetly free money-wise, and because techs can get the source too, any specific needs Brazil might have can cheaply be added. Also, don't forget, the sooner the mass of the people use open source, the sooner those open source apps will become the "best for the job", as people start contributing.
Oh yes, with Brazil's *new* president/goverment, it wouldn't suprise me if there's an ideological bit involved, too, which, I think, is good.
Brazil removes choice from government's departmental heads.
Departmental heads reply, "Oh, THAT. Whatever. We're used to it."
Meanwhile, Slashdot readers celebrate.
Yay.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
I think an 80% mandation (is that even a word?) seems fair. You leave 20% left over for missions-critical applications (military and whatnot; remember, Brazil isn't like the US - they don't spend hundreds of billions on military, and therefore, I doubt their military computer systems make up even 10% of their infrastructure), on which you can chose software based on the best choice out there. But the remaining 80%, which represents mostly desktop applications for clerks and whatnot, will be running on OSS - this is good, because it prevents government from getting locked into restrictive licencing that usually comes with desktop production software, saves money, and encurages development of open software/standards.
I think they've met a good balance here, and I congradulate them.
--
http://nemilar.net - Not your grandmother's soup kitchen
Brazil has been renamed "Torvaldia"
In Soviet Russia, beowulf clusters imagine YOU!
Is mandating across the board reductions in cash expenditures for non-domestic product unfair or counter-productive? Almost certainly not. When a second/third world economy is able to reduce its hard currency outlay for soft product, it's an across the board win. When it's further possible to use local labor for support and administration, at local labor rates, it's a larger win. When all of that can be achieved *and* they're able to use the initiative as a basis for improving the technical skills pool locally, it sure seems like a win to me.
It'll be interesting to see if they can leverage access to source and freely redistributable product into a long term cost reduction strategy. Short term the win is pretty clear. Long term, open source has some way to go in maintenance cost reduction, vis. Solaris vs. RedHat and Solaris vs. Win2k
Brazil is looking forward reducing costs. It is not about using the best tool. It is about using an adecuate one, but cheaper/free.
If closed-source software is prohibited, there's no way for companies to buy their way into Brazil.
"It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job"
That's very true, but only when you don't have mega-corporations and monopolies leveraging assets other than software (donating computer hardware, donating to social programs, etc).
While I personally believe in "the best tool for the job", governments are far more vulnerable to outside pressure than businesses.
This is just as wrong as if a country mandated 80% Microsoft. Mandate open file formats and protocols, but don't mandate people or agencies MUST use a specific type of software.
--
Who do YOU think owns UNIX?
Freedom Is Universal
Linux-Universe
It brings skills into the country and stops the export of programming jobs. It ensures that the organisatons you want to account are local. It means that all of your population can take advantage of gov't programming and development work. It reduces dependancies on countries which may or may not change their mind about you in the future. It means you aren't bound to proprietary standards (docs and APIs) which might be used to keep you on that platform. It means that the code can never be taken away from you.
Given that a countries primary mandate is social, it makes a great deal of sense to mandate free software, for the good of the country, unless you happen to be the country that is the home of Microsoft (and even then that's debatable - MS is perfectly happy to outsource programming jobs to wherever is cheapest).
Beep beep.
The best tool for a particular job might be proprietary software. However, maybe Brazil's long term goal is to alleviate themselves of proprietary software.
Certainly any software tool could be created using open source. After a few years of such creation all the best tools would be open source and Brazil will no longer be reliant any anyone but themselves. Sounds like a pretty good goal to me.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Making in mandatory is basically saying this is what we feel is the right tool for the job. I work at a company in assett management and we've done this on numerous occasions. In fact all computer purchases have to be IBM's. Is it because it's the right tool for the job though? Not really it's more because IBM offers us the better deal for bulk business.
All in all such logic is common throughout the industry. It's the same as a newspaper buying their classified department Macs to use for their job.
To strive, to seek, but not to yield
Implied :-) for those who forgot about all the "Open-this" and "Open-that" software being tossed about in the early-to-mid-90's that really had nothing open about it at all.
Yeah, Open Source is great, and it's great to have the option to use it, but I'm not sure if making it mandatory is the right thing to do. And a lot of people think that Linux is Open Source, and so is everything in it, but the truth is that there are some Linux programs (not under the GPL) that are not Open Source.
"Consider yourself a member of a virtual corporation with Mr. Torvalds as your Chief Executive Officer." - Linux Advocac
'Chamber for the Implementation of Software Libre.'" Libre = Spanish Livre = Portuguese Portuguese, not spanish, is the spoken language in Brazil...
Linux isn't the only free software out there...
Sounds like a contradiction in terms to me. Why can't we keep the adminstrators out of these decisions? They should put their efforts into making the competition open, and let the market make the choices.
I think he's got it by Jove. The success of open-source is due to the freedom that it entails. Making it mandatory will only breed resentment and turn people off.
Free versus the two hundred some odd dollars for windows could save them a lot.
... it's GNU/Linux !!!
It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
Ha, it looks like you forgot your audience, bud. At Slashdot, open source is always the best tool for the job, even if the job is opening a can of dog food.
"Some guy: Oh, crap, this can opener won't work!
"Slashdot reader: Have your tried Linux?
Well, one more government has now bought into this open hysteria over open source and Slashdot readers can party over someone's choice being removed. Cool. Ha, and to think, we thought the Wall had come down.
Chr0m0Dr0m!C
Now if I could just land an open source development job in Rio and hang out with some of those topless Brazilians.
~ now you know
...is a tool that guarantees you it can still be used in 20 years. Only Open Source Software can assure you that. The manufacturers of Closed Source Software will eventually stop support, go backrupt or be bought by a large company that just kills it. There is absolutely no excuse to use closed source software. And "It's easier to use on the short term" is NOT an excuse if you cannot be 100% certain that your data will still be readable in 10 years.
0x or or snor perron?!
then I don't see how open software on the closed platform receives much of a benefit
I dont recall ever hearing some consensus that Open Source stands for choice.
Free Software stands for SHARING SOURCE CODE. In fact, going by the GPL, you dont even get a choice about sharing it either.
So stop promulgating that stupid sentiment. I for one have no problem with mandatory open source.
So what if you lose the choice to be a slave, you still have all the choices that matter.
Are they really doing any mandating? I RTFA and it seems like they're only making the move to free software only because it's cheaper, not because they have to or anybody is forcing them to.
It only seems like they are mandating it because of the story title, even in the babelfish translation of the spanish original article title they're only 'migrating.'
I was wondering why they'd try to force open source software on anybody, isn't that against morals and such?
In this case I see some likeness to the case of Generic Drugs. Brazil forced lower prices of patented drugs by threatening with ignoring those patents and producing cheap, generic medecines.
They won because a state is still more powerful than any corporation. Imagine what would happen if SCO won the case against Linux, while Brazil would have most of the governmental IT run by Linux. Would the surrender to the power of SCO? I doubt it. So every such case is beneficial to the stability of Open Source community
You can defy gravity... for a short time
I'd say Linux/Open Source (don't forget BSD;) is the best tool 80% of the time (or more) though.
Brazil might be willing to settle for a 'good enough' solution, while saving MILLIONS of dollars. Those savings really add up, year after year. Everyone touts the advantages of OSS for business, why not apply it to a whole country? Stable standards and software also increase value over time.
Linux vendors might benefit from this, in terms of support/update plans. We'll see...
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
They diddnt mention this in the article, but mandating _100%_ open source software (Though not nessesarily FS) in goverment is reasonable for any democratic nation.
Goverments around the world are becoming more dependant on technology every day. Its not impossible that someone would be able to influence the democratic process through the technology it relies on.
I don't mean to sound like a doom-sayer or anything, because I do love Open Source..but, what happens when there's an alternative, free solution to everything?
:)
Eventually, it could easily happen. As Open Source gains popularity, it will also gain more contributions from good programmers. It is possible that the Open Source solutions created, basically in programmers' free time, could equal and/or surpass every commercial product out there.
Then what do those Open Source programmers do? P.S. Sorry if this has been said a lot before, seems like something that would be but I've never seen it said once. Correct me
but is making it mandatory going too far?
In the transition to a fully open source office, the initial training expense is high (not because Windows is easier, but because everyone already knows how to use it). After the initial expense, and assuming a large installed base (to facilitate peer support), the cost savings are enormous. Government offices are the perfect places to take advantage of these facts - no quarterly stockholder reports to worry about means the initial expense won't affect anyone's bonus, and the massive user base makes peer support extremely cost effective.
Wholly aside from the cost efficiency aspect is the open government and independence issue. As things stand, Brazil is dependent on Microsoft, and runs on software to which Brazil's citizens have no access. This is hardly an appropriate position for democracy to find itself in.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It's not against everything that open source stands for. For example it's anti-Microsoft, and whilst commercial software companies are not the enemy of OS, Microsoft is ;-)
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"mandating open software over closed is a financial and logical extension of the notion that government should be more cost effective, accessible to all comers, more equitable and be able to accomplish it's tasks. What this does is to put a huge incentive on other software companies to compete on terms of usability and service, instead of locked in closed formats and inertia, ie, holding them ransom for money every year beyond what is really necessary to spend, which is the model most governments and busineses have been using for a long time, but times change now. Cost is a serious consideration, and open source has enough variety to do the bulk of what needs to be done, and shows every indication of soon doing *all* of it.. If-obvious reference- microsoft wants to still compete, the ball is in their court now, there's several avenues they can persue, either drop prices to a much more realistic level and open up their document formats in particular, or go full bore open source same as linux and bsd vendors,make their profit from service and reliability and security, and also the same thing applies to various specific applications they might require.
The "right tool for the job" is the correct assessment, but you must needs take all the variables into account when considering your selection. Example, I can dig out a small gadren spot to make a new flower bed, I could lease a trackhoe, by golly that thing is very efficient in digging out the bed, and it's sure a tool, but all things considered the better tool would be me, the garden sysadmin and my shovel I own and don't have to rent.
I don't think the brazilians are stupid, they can see the advantages in cost, long term viability, having the freedom to develop custom in house, having the notion that more of their people will have lawful access to the same tools for more universal access, and so on.
Put it another way, it would sure be bogus if to use the highway here I had to only drive a belchfire, and government wouldn't use anything but belchfires, and they were real expensive all the time with expensive parts and expensive maintenance. That's been almost completely "mandated" so far, time to move on to another idea.
If Mac OS X or Unix is needed for something, or someone absolutely must have a Windows box, then there's the remaining 20%, which will always have some space left in it if you keep adding open source machines, and converting older machines to open source.
....gang oft agley.
The article, if you read it, says that accpording to one newspaper story, the government PLANS to move SLOWLY (starting with one pilot; ramping up ove rthree years) to Open Source.
Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on your viewpoint, plans and especially government plans often do not work out. ("No New Taxes", remember that one?). So I would not cheer. Or worry. Just yet.
Michael
---
BDOS ERR ON A:>
Just a reminder of what just happened in Munich, Germany: while trying to convince public administration to choose Windows, Microsoft dramatically reduced its prices. So, if you're a big company or a public entity, the sole announcement that you consider the Linux alternative can save you a couple of million dollars. Not considering OSS alternatives will cost you or your taxpayers millions of dollars.
That's why competition is so good.
The goal of the migration is to save money by finding alternatives to expensive proprietary licenses.
Which I can totally understand. In this case, folks, it's not about philosophy, it's about economics. The Brazilian government shouldn't have to wreck its budget because some of its members are complacent enough to stay with Microsoft forever.
The one thing I'm curious about (not morbidly curious, just curious) is how much the consulting and other migration costs are going to add up before the transition to open-source is completed.
The coolest voice ever.
I think that is why it is mandatory for 80% of the computers and not 100%.
Later,
Phil
It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
We are talking about government here. Their job is long term well-being of their people. OSS is the best tool for this job.
ato
...below poverty line. Some of them starving. It's a nice idea to stop sending money abroad for tasks which could be made domestically. Besides, this 80% ratio will make corruption more difficult in software acquisitions, since it will require a hell of brazilian bureaucracy to acquire proprietary systems.
- o u r b a n a l e g i o o m n i a v i n c i t o -
Notice A Trend?
... Pocket PC interface ... Tablet PCs). Current activities will give provide needed funds to Linux development and also provide an impetus to MS to get its act together. Good news all round.
Ballmer Does!
MS is going through what happened to IBM years ago. "No-one ever got sacked for buying IBM". Decision makers like to run with MS (whether for desktop, development, whatever) because if things go wrong, they at least can't be accused of using "weird" stuff like Linux.
But when others start having the courage to adopt Linux, it becomes less of an excuse. Indeed, if other governments are successful with Linux, decision makers who play conservative will even have to justify why they chose Microsoft when there are other viable alternatives.
If years of gluttony have eroded product and service quality, as IBM discovered, a monopolistic empire can quickly crumble.
This is good for software all round. I am pleased to see Linux getting some action in conservative quarters. I am also pleased that Microsoft will be forced to innovate. Flame if you must, but I think they have always been very good in responding to challenges. Yes, some of that had involved questionable tactics. But they have also made some top innovations over the years, or at least commercialised cutting edge research and ideas which were formerly obscure (e.g. Windows 95 interface - Start Menu, Taskbar etc
One thing that really bugs me about many governments around the world is how they are never willing to touch the fundamental issue behind free vs. proprietary software. Copyright is a government-granted exclusive right to a work. If this government-granted right is hurting the society, the society should reconsider the principles behind the copyright.
I find it insane that the Brazilian government first grants each author with strong rights for the software they write and then they say that sorry, we can't use such software because you use the rights we have given you. I also find it insane that the US government grants software authors similar rights and when one company simply uses those government-granted rights (well, I guess you know what company I'm talking about), the government sues it for abusing those rights.
Making open source mandatory is pointless. The proper way to change things is not to grant anyone privileges that hurt the society. The copyright, to some extent, might be a good thing. If it becomes such a bad thing that the government itself wishes to use only copyleft software, there is something fundamentally flawed either in the government decision or the copyright law.
We should mandate free software for government not because "it's the best widget for the woozle problem," but because it's _public_.
The government shouldn't be subsidizing some _private_ interest if there is a public alternative.
I don't see it mandating a specific type of software. I see it mandating a specific type of licence.
And even for that, I don't see any of the specifics on the licence. Perhaps MS's Shared Source initiative would even be open enough. MS is perfectly free to develop open source alternatives that they can sell to the Brazilian Government.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
That can't be bad...
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
I think this is a very smart, but somewhat risky move. 80% is a lot of computers for a lot of people. I sure hope that this will not cause major chaos as these kind of overhauls do tend to cause. Government institutions can be notoriously bad at implenting new technology (although exceptions appear of course). I am not sure how Brazil is doing at the moment, but I hope this move will not interfere with what is already a weak economic situation.
What Brazil may hope to achieve is jumpstarting a good developer community and user base by this action and jump the gun on other countries in the world giving them a competitive advantage in the future. I wish them all the best...
I think the real winner is the Brazilian citizens. Although the government is certainly not about to buy trhem a bunch of computers, thisis a big step towards spreading technological skills throughout the region, into schools, and into people's homes. Let's not forget that a society that cannot stay in tune with technology is doomed to be at a serious disadvantage on a global scale.
My guess is thats where that other 20% comes in
Yes, in an ideal world, everyone has choice.
We should all realize, though, that often the power to choose is wasteful, and unnecessary. What do I mean?
Do you know how much time, effort, and money gets wasted having some government committee trying to decide what software to use for something? How many factors are involved? And we're talking latin america here, don't forget bribes.
The choice to use free software is not the same as the "choice" to use Windows. Free software encompasses a whole range of things; somteimes, an edict like this is what it TAKES To change things.
Canada switched to the metric system in a very short time. How? It was forced on everyone. Once you accept it, it's EASY. Yet we still have people in the US with silly studies saying how it would take 100 years for the US to switch, the logistics, yadda yadda. Guess what, if it was actually decreed that you HAD to switch, you would find a way, it wouldn't be anywhere near as disruptive as everyone says, and so on.
The same happened with the switch to the Euro.. tons of people had studies and reports shownig how switching was going to be a HUGE disaster, how it wouldn't work. Guess what, it went rather well.
Given what government does, I'm sure they can fit whatever applications absolutely cannot be replaced by free alternatives in the 20% non-free they are allowed.
What I'm saying is, in practice, sometimes removing choice is the ONLY way to force a real shift in how things are done. I mean, people have had a choice all along, and the pressures involved caused them to chose proprietary things.
Mr Darl? A one way ticket to Brazil?
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
In connection with the quarterly report of The SCO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q, for the quarter ended April 30, 2003, the undersigned certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of each of our knowledge:
1. The quarterly report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
2. The information contained in the quarterly report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
By: Darl McBride, President and Chief Executive OfficerDate: June 13, 2003
The entire SCO quarterly report is found here
...when the right tool for the job can't be found then it will be sought by this gov't. That is excellent news, as it builds the open source pool of software, and pays (hopefully local brazilian) open source software writers for their effort.
KS
CowboyNeal writes:
"This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product."
This is a little like saying "political freedom is nice, but what if it isn't the best tool for the existing government?"
Some -- myself being one of them -- might argue that being able to look freely upon the code that you are running trumps any notion of "best tool." Similarly, despotism might be viewed as the "best tool" but it is simply inferior because it must take from the user to, at best, theoretically give something back. Even if it succeeds in it's stated goal, it still comes up short.
My
Limekiller
Wow. Get off the phone with the Microsoft rep. What mainstream category of software doesn't have an OpenSource counterpart. I say mainstream because I don't think the government of Brazil is going to be the next Pixar. They don't need some super-specialized software! OpenOffice or MS Office --damn what's the best tool for the job. Let's see they do the same damn thing. I should buy MS Office though, because it is the "best tool for the job." I'm sure the people of Brazil are glad you're not in charge cowboy. I'm not trolling here, just leave your unsupported flamebait comment out of the post; it has taken over the discussion here.
More importantly, they will be saving money. There's no way around that for them. They'll also feel less pressured by a company that's interest are far from theirs--the one's that are selling the "best tool for the job" crap like there's no alternative that wouldn't work just as well.
Ah well, just my two cents worth. They're using the BEST tool, they just stopped asking MS what the BEST(tm) tool is.
If Microsoft was not an American company, how would the U.S. feel about basing significant parts of it's infrastructure on Microsoft software?
Why do schools think that giving my kids an education about computer science means teaching them how to use Word and Power Point?
And yes, my daughter lost half her essay to Word two days ago...
Linux makes computing fun again! I want my kids to roll their sleeves up and learn how computers really work!
Except for completely custom software, are we going to reach the point where open source makes paid software development obsolete? As if the economy isn't bad enough...
That money may very well stay local... building a local technology industry instead of outsourcing.
We only have one short Brazilean newspaper report. A lot of devils could be sticking in the details.
/. blurb said they were all going to run Linux. They're still >90% Windows.
I remember when Sun offered StarOffice for free to danish schools and the
This looks very interesting, but don't jump to conclusions.
Any sufficiently advanced libertarian utopia is indistinguishable from government.
WTF? No where in the article does it say its Mandatory. Thats the english transaltion that added. that. Great journalism....
Look, I know that MS Windows is the Best OS and that MS Office is the best productivity application. Bill Gates says so he's rich and bought me a new car... so I belive him.
BUT if we can't see and analyze the source of the program how could we possibly know if it is the best tool for any particular job?
We know that it has been widely adopted, but most common does not mean best. We know that it is widely supported by other applications, but since those are mainly closed-source also, we can't analyze to determine if they are best. We have testimonals, but we have testimonials about snake oil too.
How would anyone be able to determine the true quality of closed (or otherwise hidden) items.
The Taiwanese government recently became the latest one to advocate the development and adoption of open source software. The main reason? Cost, of course. The government plans to save nearly US$300 million that it otherwise would have paid in royalty fees to software giant Microsoft. In addition to promoting open source, Taiwanese legislators have expressed dissatisfaction with the U.S. government's lack of action against Microsoft's illegal monopoly. They also have launched an investigation to find out whether the Taiwanese government needs to take its own actions against the company. \ This excerpt is from another article, and I think it states some good reasons for why a national government would make this decision. Check out http://www.osopinion.com/perl/printer/18157/
Take it from someone native to the language
- 06 -13-009-26-OS-LL-PB-0007
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003
"Brazil isn't like the US - they don't spend hundreds of billions on military, and therefore, I doubt their military computer systems make up even 10% of their infrastructure)..."
Hey! We brazillians resent that dismissive remark.
I am the Brazillian Defence Minister and I have spoken with the army on just this point. They're both too upset to comment right now.
Yours,
Generalisimo BigHatAndMirrorAviatorShades.
Political language
Do I give a shit what my government uses? Nope. All I care is that they don't expend oodles of money and actually get the job done.
And don't give me that free as in beer shit. The *training* and lower productivity alone will cost more.
Phase out yes, wholly replace in one step no.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Robert Oppenheimer was a strong believer in universal access to knowledge as it is the only thing that prevents our humanity from being lost in a vast flood of specialized and closed technology:
And Paulo Freire, one of the 20th century's most influential educators, born in Brazil, held prisoner in Brazil, exiled from Brazil, would have loved to see this moment. Finally a way for so many more Brazilians to act on their own behalf.
People You Should Know : Freire
One need only compare Freire's "the teacher" and Microsoft to understand the level of oppression that occurs in closed source monopoly price software environments:
...Shame on you, Linux media.
Brazil is NOT moving its computers to Open Source, and we are not even close to having a law or even a government decision about mandatory Open Source Software.
This article is based on a translation from a translation and contains a lot os misleading and untruthful information.
BTW, it would cost us billions to make a mass-move to *any* other software system, why we would do that in the middle of a BIG recession (4% decrease in industrial production)?
God Damn TruthSearch. What sort of a handle is that? You LIED you sack of shit. There is no mandatory. Go search about decent journalism and then come back here and post something with integrity. Linux is great, I am glad you like it, but spreading lies like this will NOT help.
Is it really 'free' (as in speech) when it is mandated?
[FromTheMorning]
If so, this might be a reason for the mandate...
By mandating open-source/free software the government of Brazil has started down a path which provides a rich environment for opportunity--domestic and internationally. If the tools which are freely available cannot fully do the job, at least they have the source for those tools and a domestic labour force capable of picking up the slack and putting together solutions based on a working model. That domestic force also has ties to international sources of talent and software (community).
They can even hire abroad or take solutions from abroad as long as these solutions can be audited. That's just one of the things that makes this decision great. Think about this, why does a government like the United States pay lip service to M$ and permit them to go unpunished for monopolistic practices? Because it's in the interest of USGOV to see the majority of the world's domestic, business, and government networks running software which is easily crackable (easy to break at the TCP/IP stack-namespace and overflow/crack apps and kernels). Want a clue? Go check the Openbsd.org site's front page.
Now we have a government that can spend that money on hardening it's networks and liberating itself from long-term information retrival issues because some corporate clowns own their ass on document protocols. The USGOV also feels threatened when they have to view another government as a competitior (any government that can safeguard its information is no longer their bitch). Face it, we live in a world where secrets are like bombs. The more you don't share, the more chilly relations become. Imagine the NSA having actually create another specialized team to snoop Brazillian networks because they can't use the typical toolz which work almost everwhere else? The next thing you know, the State Department is sending icy messages, making 3am flights, sending mouthpieces with nasty little messages for face-to-face snarl and purr sessions, and dropping notes off at the IMF.
But even though these things will happen (and have probably been happening to some degree already) behind the scenes, this decision at a governmental level will have only as many teeth as is required to make the people in charge happy. Until we hear independent voices in the Open-source/Free software community talking at length about the trials and tribulations and the victories made towards freeing Brazil of closed-source/Lock-in solutions in government programs we should probably relax. Government is a lumbering beast, it can take a long time to turn it in any direction no matter what decision has been made, no matter what the desired outcome is.
Maybe what this topic needs is a good illumination of what happened with Mexico...anyone packing Free-software/open-source stories about Mexico?
Every new form of media has it's own Requirimento
Their ruling does not mandate Linux, or any other particular operating system. It's just a statement that Brazil in unwilling to accept certain licensing schemes. Generally, closed-source companies set their licensing policy, and you just have to deal with it or not use their product. Brazil is effectively bargaining in bulk, and requring software to be licensed on their terms.
Please note that the language spoken in Brazil is portuguese, the brazilian word for "free" is liVre. What you wrote on your article (ie: libre) is spanish.
I believe the closest it really guarantees me is that the source code is available now. Can I still access it in 20 or 100 years from now? Will the source maintiner be around then? Will anyone care about that particular OpenSource project? Will the specific version I am running be available?
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
I knew that question was coming.
I'm not arguing that the US should switch. I don't live there, and I couldn't care less if they want to be incompatable with the rest of humanity.. it fits with their mindset anyway.. I'm just using it as an example.
The good reason, by the way, is because it would be nice if the world could speak one language when it came to sizes, and the main holdout is the US. So either a few billion people have to switch to teh US system, or the US has to switch to metric.
One aspect of growing linux deployment that is not fully appreciated is the GPL-driven development boost that will result.
As governments and corporations adopt OS platforms, they will have itches to scratch and be in a position to do it themselves thanks to the GPL.
The GPL will mean that much of this development will be given back to the community. Though not necessarily the case of in-house non-distributed code).
This is why the big wins -- either corporate or government not only validate the FOSS model, but strengthen it through an endless feedback loop.
***The GPL is viral like a smile is contageous***
If I were running a country (and luckily for all I am not), I don't think I would even consider using software that was produced and exported from another country, no matter how well we got along.
Brazil is, after all, a nation, not a business. It makes sense to me that they would want to be able to use software that another nation could not deny them. They would want to use software they could repair themselves. That they could check for security flaws themselves. So that money doesn't leave the country, as others have said. But also so that their nation is not dependent on another when it's not necessary.
Kind of the same way a nation might want to grow its own food.
This actually means that my government is investing in a job for me! I will have a chance to help with customizing, translating, or even developing the software that the government is going to use. This is great, as a brazilian free software developer I have to say that we couldn't have donne better. Now we can create more jobs for our people instead of giving away thousands of dollars in license fees to overseas companies!!!
I can see M$ advertising now: "See.. if you use OpenSource, you are a communist"
*shower*
Would make a great name for a clandestine radio station! With Che Guevara berets, cigars, and the other paraphernalia.
This is a compromise more likely to make it into law, and serves the intended purpose. This prevents vendor lock in of your data, and applies to databases as well as the desktop. (A much bigger concern for governments)
.rtf and other formats, but you have to jump through hoops to do it. They would presumably then be severely penalized in the contract bidding. This would push them to i) publicly document their file formats, ii) switch to an open file format by default, or iii) lose out on the bid.
It also kills off undocumented file formats such as the MS-Word defaults. In order to win the contract, closed source vendors such as MS would have to switch to a default open file format that any application could read. Of course, Word can save files in
My rights don't need management.
I don't even want to read the mental and logical acrobatics libertarians are going to perform to criticize the decision by the Brazillian government .
Examples:
It prohibits choice! Best tool for the job! Freedom of competition! Mission-critical responsiblity! Oh no!
Despite this, it is clear Brazil did not stop anyone from competing. They only mandated that for software to be considered, it must be Open Source. That is a condition any business can meet; open your source! If you don't want to, don't! It's that easy.
See this article for other reasons a government MUST use open source software: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.
The subheadings in that article tell the story:
A government that uses proprietary software is not an independent government.
You cannot know now to what contract provisions you will be held in the future.
Microsoft Keeps Control: Microsoft has abandoned its earlier successful business model.
Microsoft restricts your software options.
Backup Problems: Windows XP cannot copy some of its own files.
I'm sorry, but I tried to use ONLY OpenSource software for about 6 months not too long ago. It worked fine unless I wanted to actually communicate to the "real" business world. I ended up spending most of my time trying to make things work in Wine and updating my QT/GTK libraries. OpenOffice and other apps like it are nice, but don't work 100%. The business world can't affort that 5% incompatibilies. It works fine on a personal level.
Linux isn't ready for the desktop. If people would consolidate the efforts of ONE window manager instead of the breakoff between the KDE/GNOME it would be faster.
Also the GPL helps keep the software "FREE", but makes it so nobody can do with linux like Apple did with BSD. So linux will take much longer to refine and make a viable solution than any NON-GPL product.
OSS is like most social revolutions. It is for anything which broadens its agenda and power base. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
From a historical perspective, this news on Brazil is quite interesting. They have had one of the most meddlesome governments in IT. I was working with several Brazilians in the 80s. At the time, Brazil wanted to build up its computer manufacturing and had strict import laws controlling the importation of computers and computer programs. The hope was that by creating an isolated market, they would develop a flourishing IT industry. My friends, of course, thought the laws were extremely troublesome and oppressive, and were trying to find a way out of Brazil. They told stories of how most of Brazil's IT infrastructure was running on 10 year old software because companies couldn't import the new software. I was hoping the acticle would have more info on the history of Brazil's attempts to legislate its IT industry.
Anyway, mandating the use of OSS fits well within the social and political objectives of the movement. OSS does not stand for "choice." OSS stands for "open development." These are different ideas. In many regards OSS is in stark opposition to the notion of ownership of property. All the brouhaha about copyrights and patents is an attempt to create some sort of ownership to intellectual development; so that it would fit in a free market.
When the code is publicly developed, there is no longer any "ownership" of ideas or code. It is all a communal resource. Hence, the philosophies of ownership that were advanced by Smith, Locke and others are no longer applicable.
As for choice, for OSS to really excel it cannot allow companies to choose that this piece of software is open and this piece is closed. The goal of the GPL is to make all the software code "open." Otherwise the greed of software developers would be to take from the community without giving back. Government mandates simply add the power to the state to enforce the idea of open development.
OSS pretty much started as a reaction to the Microsoft monopoly. Since monopolies limit choice, I can see how people in the initial step of the revolution equated open with free; However, I suspect that it will be anti-US and nationalistic attitudes of countries like Brazil that will bring the OSS revolution to fruition. The fact that the revolution is different then what people thought the revolution was about is par for the course.
As someone who is a software engineer for the Brazillian government in São Paulo, I feel compelled to reply. Open source is widely used and discussed as an option in almost every reguard. Yet virtually all server-based apps are run on solaris. In most cases you can choose to run linux on the desktop - some even choose bsd. Eclipse is fastly becomming universal. Yet virtually all development is being done in Java - pretty open for a closed standard but not exactly open source. Simple decrees will be hard to change that culture. Still, the media I've read is not showing direct quotes from high level officials. The IT minister is quoted as speaking in the name of (chief of staff) ministro José Dirceu, and even that President Lula has stated software livre is "polÃtica pÃblica de governo". Pretty loftly claims from a lower level official - hope they are true but still as yet are unconfiremed in higher places. It is my belief that the increasing amount of developers believing software livre is kool will have more impact than any law. I don't believe that software livre is really going to save much money as claimed. Public governments using publicly available tools makes more sense to me. But seeing those numbers explains how the Secretaria de Fazenda do Rio (Rio IRS) created those swiss bank accounts. iksrazal
No, it's not too far. Not for public stuff. State's money should not be spent without reason and only to maximize public benefit, and public information should only be handled by public software.
I congratulate my Brazilian brothers on a smart decision. Otimo!!! Brasil, o pinguino mais grande do mundo :-)
``L'imagination au povoir.''
I read the subject as "Brazil Manatees Shift to Free Software"... and thought, Wow, I need to pay more attention to the bio-engineering sector!
"He who throws mud, loses ground." - proverb
It's not really that Brazil is mandating open source, but it's using it for some projects. Microsoft was competing for those, but they lost on technology, price, and cool factor.
Hey, if the FSF re-brands free software as Freedom Software for the US market, it might gain acceptance among certain government circles!
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
Playing devil's advocate, it might be fairly easy to make a case for mandatory free software in government. My argument for that would be that government, as a public entity, has special non-technical requirements. It's sufficiently important to insure that a) you know what's in that software, b) you can continue operating and accessing data for time periods literally an order of magnitude or more greater than the average software generation these days regardless of whether any single software vendor exists or supports the products you use, and c) your citizens aren't required to buy specific commercial products just to access government data and services, that those requirements trump any technical superiority of a proprietary solution.
I've been involved in a few cool projects, and the base are usually shelf systems. High-end Alpha Stations, Digital Servers, Unix/NT SOs, Oracle Databases, you name it.
It's easier to mantain, contract services are cheaper, and development is cheaper too.
The specialized tools, otherwise, are developed in-house or by form of external contracts, but even that way plain win32 environments are best suited for the job. A C++ programmer costs a lot more than a GOOD Delphi coder. We can save money and hire the C++ guy to do the critical stuff AND the Delphi guys to do the easy stuff.
[]'s Carlos Cardoso - Becoming a brazilian ProBlogger, typo by typo
I don't think the decision to mandate Free Software goes too far. Closed source software providers like Microsoft still have the choice to offer Open Source products of their own. Brazil's government made their choice, now it's the turn of the commercial software vendors. Either they provide open source software, or they do business elsewhere.
I'm surprised at the number of people who think the government of Brazil is going too far to mandate that government computers use open source. Brazil making this mandate is just like the CIO of some company making the mandate to use open source, or MS Windows. If Brazil was passing a law that forced all it's citizens to use open source, that would definately be going to far. Right now, it sounds like they've made the choice internally to use certain software systems, and htose software systems are open source, yay!
The open source community shouldn't second guess themselves when they score a win.
OSS pretty much started as a reaction to the Microsoft monopoly.
Wrong. Stallman started the whole ball rolling (formally) in the 80s, way before MS was anywhere near a monopoly. It was started simply because Stallman didn't like not having the ability to tinker with source code of some stuff he was coming across.
The fact that the revolution is different then what people thought the revolution was about is par for the course.
Exactly. It has stopped being about choice and is now about pushing a platform. Had the article said "Brazil to become an all MS shop" most people here would have thier nickers in a twist.
I love linux, but I'm really starting to dislike the majority of "supporters."
Anyone who thinks that this is too far is still buying into the closed source paradigm.
We have been exposed to the consumer culture for so long anything that you don't buy seems unnatural or inferior. When you shop for cereal, software or cars, it is all about brand recognition, warranty, style. You know what I'm talking about. You keep the boxes don't you?
Frankly many people, feel that shaping public opinion (social engineering) through legislation is wrong or outdated. Yet we elect officials to think about these issues and make the best decision for the public. Too bad we can't have a revival of intelligent political conversation. Yet another example of why the USA is closer to the end of its age rather than the beginning.
Good for Brazil. Power to the people.
When Company A decides to change from Windows to Linux, or from Photoshop to OpenPaint (ok, I'm making that up) nobody start to cry.
The decision does not apply to private-owned companies, nor to any specific-used software. Nobody will drop Oracle because they MUST use mySQL. You can't simply change tools like that.
The point is: 95% of every government-related office work is plain office stuff. Answer mails, type letters, fill forms... It can be done as easily with a Linux / *Office as with a Windows/MsOffice solution.
The living-hell I work right now is going to pay $20.000 in Windows/Office licenses. I tried and tried to show to my manager that a OpenSource solution IS much cheaper, but he doesn't want to bother with the tech support issues. He's not blind, he's a PHP Biatch, a rather good Linux/BSD geek, but your know what they say about power...
After all, how many people use 10% of MS Word's features?
[]'s Carlos Cardoso - Becoming a brazilian ProBlogger, typo by typo
If they'd be buying the next version they go to the open source version? Or after a set amount of time they start putting it on computers?
I don't see a valid reason to change from something in use already to something else simply because it is open source. More features, reliability and other things (security..) are valid reasons. I'm in love with Open Source as much as the next geek, but lets be honest, we're not a government ready to spend the money to shift to it. Hopefully they honestly have a good phase-in plan, but I find that hard to believe from a politician :(.
I hope they go with FreeBSD rather than linux. The BSD license will allow them to build up a viable software industry while linux will only lead them down the path of garbage software.
The project that gave birth to the Software Livre Brasil was Software Livre RS, at http://www.softwarelivre.org , and announced in the end of the IV FISL (Miguel de Icaza was there :) ).
This is a great thing; it's our money that was used to buy proprietary software; now it will be used to invest in our knowledge.
And to all guys who are saying this isn't a good thing: f*ck you! You are all envious! HAHAHA!
Thanks for the clarification. You are completely right, the true root of OSS is the tradition of open scientific inquiry.
My brain fart was about the growth of the Linux community. A great deal of the interest in Linux is in reaction to the Microsoft monopoly. I suspect that many people on this board have Microsoft carved in their brains as the source of all evil...forgetting that MS was once seen as the force that was liberating us from the tyranny of the mainframe mindset.
There is a tendency for people to see their lives as being all of history, when, in fact, Western history has thousands of years of discourse on the role of markets and science. Personally, I think the OSS movement is very much short sighted.
I found the Brazilian legislation interesting because they had a history of approaching IT in a nationalistic manor. It is also interesting that the nationalistic tradition toward IS fits quite well within with the goals of OSS at this point in time. I labeled the post history, because I was thinking about how much I wish the article had delved into the history...not in a belief that I know more history than others. I tend to stray in comments.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
I think 2003 is a historic year in the software industry. This is the year that Open Source software began to be recognized as far superior to proprietary software. This is also the year that people are changing their opinion about which is the best way to develop software.
With these governments all across the world adopting the Open Source philosophy, and with the corresponding influx of dvelopers, testers, and designers, Open Source software will become unbeatable in all arenas.
I personally am very glad to see these governments mandate Open Source software. Why should a government subject themselves and their citizens to proprietary lockin? Their software should be just as open as their government. I hope one day that the United States will adopt a similar approach.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
In all the other cases, the goverment would sign up for contracts that would tie them to MS software for years. That's even worse than mandating Free Software by law, because once you've signed a multimillion dollar contract for ten years, there's no sensible way to back out until the deal expires. If Free Software ever becomes a burden, just change the law back and buy whatever's necessary. Not trivial, but cheaper than breaching contracts.
And mandating Free Software helps the Brazilian market and software developers, no matter how you look at it. The Brazilian software industry is almost non-existant (except in niche markets), so there's none of that "Free Software software hurts the market and kills jobs" excuse. Proprietary software is rarely Brazilian, and thus has traditionally been a drain on the national market and generates a minimal number of jobs.
I applaud the decision.
But I'm not sure that I like the "mandatory benchmark" method of encouraging the adoption of Free Software.
First, it may require the adoption of Free Software for an application where there is a comercial alternative that is better suited, thus making Free Software look not only bad, but like a "bully" lobby.
Second, it prevents Free Software from succeeding on it's merits alone, thus creating the perception that free software is of lower quality and needing "help" from legislation mandating its use. Similar to some bad implementations of Afirmative Action in the United States that actualy hinder minorities in respect to individuals being respected for thier skills in certain industries. (I know that I may get beat up by some well-meaning people, and attract the support of some wrong-minded bigots for that statement, but I'll deal with that as it comes.)
Third, there is no need for manditory adoption in order to support Free Software, if equal consideration can be mandated. Free Software is of high enough quality, relatively complete, and has a diverse number of applications to compete on an even playing field. The greatest hindrance to the adoption of Free Software alternatives is in combatting the expensive "back room" dealing that the software giant and other opponents of Free Software are able to conduct through campaign contributions and outright bribery and/or blackmail. (Not in the U.S., though. No, that would never happen here!)
The biggest danger of such legislation is that it gives political ammunition to the comercial software vendors. Any computer related problems could be made to look as if the fault lies with Free Software, even if there is no real connection. Or if free software is incorrectly applied (intentionally or unintentionally) to a problem and falls short, then the comercial vendors will be sure to use that not only to get this particular legislation changed, but to prevent other, well planned, "equal consideration" legislation from being adopted in other nations, regions, or cities around the world.
Read, L
It is absolutely correct for the state in Brazil to be doing this kind of thing. Even if specific Software libre tools are not quite the best tool for the job, by the very nature of them being used in government they will get better and the non tangible benefits of SL would tip any analysis on favour of SL
"The first thing to do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging."
Backup Problems: Windows XP cannot copy some of its own files.....
Actual Article Quote
"Windows 98 can copy all of its own files, Windows XP cannot. The Windows XP file system is artificially crippled; it cannot copy some of its own system files. This makes it difficult to make functional backups. Microsoft apparently uses this crippling as copy protection"
Talk about ignorance and FUD. Where are people getting this stuff?
WindowsXP has a mechanism that is called Shadow Volume Copying, when invoked, can even backup IN USE files that are hard locked by other processes.
This is how and why WindowsXP Backup CAN backup every file and piece of the OS on a Hard Drive without disturbing the users using the computer at the same time.
It is also an openly programmable service that other programs (like backups) can utilize to create copies of in use files and backup a user's hard drive.
Articles bloviating with ignorant information like this just makes everyone here in the Open Source and Slashdot world look stupid.
At least find a 'real' reason to bash XP if that is your 'goal of the day', making stuff up is just making the whole community look ridiculous.
And the funniest part of this Article's statement... Windows98 CANNOT copy all of it own files unless the computer is booted into safe mode. The 'in use' files are locked and cannot be copied.
So actually WindowsXP is better at backing up information than Windows98, and several other unnamed OSes because of its Volume Shadow service.
I know it has been done many times, but here I go again. I have seen some discussions, but still have not been able to pin it down. Can I as a manager really say Push for Open Source in our office about-to-be-established, or am I setting myself to be shafted by some of the techies advocating Microsoft right now when things may start going wrong.
And I know Windows so could get a lot of troubleshooting done by the techies here itself for a fair price - will I be able to find help outside the group of techies in our department if we go to Linux, and get it for a fair price. Again, paying in dollars is out of question, so I am looking at people who are willing to accept the local rates in India. This is a problem because a lot of the talent resides in exchange-rich countries (i.e. high equivalent wage) so they might not be available to us.
And how hard can I morally press the Windows techies to learn Linux, or find themselves quite irrelevant.
So in addition to the cost issue, and to the philosophical issue, the human resource issue, there is this moral issue. How hard should I press my Windows techies to learn Linux, without crossing into being unreasonable and, must I say, stoopid.
Here is the situation. We are in the process of establishing a small office for an Asian Sports Body. The office is to be set in India. There are 44 countries, but of course many of them do not have good internet facilites. So, the number of countries to really worry about boils down to about 20.
We need to set up 4 desktops, have 2 laptops, and must be able to maintain website for the Association. The website will be hosted on a commercial server.
As the website is to act as a "local newspaper" for the association, it should have "good content management software" and also be able to take in stories automatically from the Association's parent body (about 5-10 new pieces of info everyday).
The website must also be a resource with all statistics of athletic events, and provide images and multimedia for the local presses. It will have to be updated with new events (calendar), statistics for athletes, build up dossiers of web info and news on some athletes, and provide good content. Meaning it should be easy to update by the Editorial People. Would there be enough Software in Linux to accomplish this. Would it be right to retrain my team from Windows to Linux. Can I get help if stuff happens. Can I make a leap to Linux on faith - not knowing much of the details.
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
This should be a no-brainer. Free software saves money, since it costs less.
Governments should go for this, just as they should award contractors to the best bidder (union or not, regardless of skin color). It just saves money.
This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
The "best tool for the job" argument completely misses the point of Open Source. It's not about getting a "free lunch" but rather meeting your needs by the most economically efficient means possible. (That's right--real capitalism without the "intellectual property" BS!)
People who make these "best tool" statements fail to take into account the fact that it is usually cheaper to do a little bit of your own development (add the missing feature(s) you need, fix bugs, etc.) than to pay megabucks for out-of-the-box proprietary solutions. (1) Development need not be in-house either. There are plenty of geeks worldwide who would love to be paid to develop free software. I do this myself with my consulting business.
For foreign governments, there is the added benefit of reduced imports. What's better for a nation's economy? Pumping money out to the US for software licenses or hiring people / companies in your own country to enhance existing Open Source solutions to meet your needs. Frankly, it's a no brainer. Congrats to the Brazilian government for following the wise lead of others.
(1) Good example: German government developing MS Exchange / Outlook replacement for KDE: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-982816.html
This is really the same question. If a dictatorship (an unelected body backed up by, say, international law) controls software which is more efficient than current 'democratic' software, should we use the more efficient software?
Of course, you need to look at the broader issues. Dictatorships have a low life expectancy - the people at the top become more and more corrupt, siphon off more and more money until the whole thing collapses. The people being dictated to lose their ability to think and act constructively, so when the collapse comes anarchy results. Soviet Union, now Iraq. In the same way, countries without an indigenous software industry risk are exposed to the fallout as the suppliers fight among themselves somewhere else in the world. Brazil must be worried about what will happen to the likes of Sun, and the future trend in Microsoft licensing and compatibility. But they cannot control it.
Now, because of the WTO, I suspect that Brazil cannot enforce local sourcing: that would be contrary to internationalisation rules. But they can support OSS, because that is a level playing field around the world.
So my answer to the question about mandating (even though it does not seem to be any such thing) would be that governments have a right to have policies. If the best tool for the job is not currently OSS, someone can try to provide it. That's no different from any other bespoke government software project. The contractor has to agree to some kind of OSS licence. That's just a contract term. If, say, Microsoft wants to bid to build a large government system, they can do so provided they agree to the contract terms. If they choose not to tender, that is their decision.
Many Third World countries have very young populations. Most of their workforce have never been exposed to computers. The argument that installed base prevents migration is not valid as it may be in mature economies. I have long believed that Linux will have its fastest percentage penetration in the Third World, even is this is not the largest in terms of units for some time. Perhaps I'm right.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Yes.
...
Finding the *exact* group of tools will take a while (a C IDE? Uhhh. Adjunta. Why is it called that? Dunno). *finding the name of the thing you need is a pain in the bum, but rest assured, it IS out there.
For you, look into the web desingiing programs, bluefish/Quanta. For adding the content, it's probably easier to use PERL with the HTML libs.
Put a little effort into the PERL, and yu canhave them produce the text, put it in adirectory, and get the PERL to ingest the data, recreate the page, and done.
*Separate the steps out*. Get one bit done that is independent of all the rest, and devewlop that. Two advantages:
1) You'll find it cleaner code (so easier to write/maintain/debug
2) You can develop in parallel if you have the workers
Also, it's easier to test. If you'd used Office's "Export as Web page", and it didn't work, it could be
1) the version of office
2) the version of the web server
3) an error in the Office doc
4) the process of looking for the doc/saving it
5) permissons
If it works, the Office route may be easier to do. As soon as it stops working, you have a big problem.
So
Small
Modular
Simple
Single task
will make your life a lot easier.
is a good thing. This is the first dribble of a coming flood of migrations. People have gotten tired of M$ licensing extortion schemes. They backed down a bit recently by throwing in some tech support. But lets face it guys, these new extortion schemes increase a company's software expenditures by 150-200% with no additional value. People are looking for alternatives that make sense. If OSS can fit that bill, so much the better. People are also getting tired of M$ bullshit of locking into a perpetual upgrade path. People want flexibility and options, and M$ is all about none of that.
Quit playing Monopoly with Bill.
Linux - of the people, by the people, and for the people.
Why should I be happy about this? A once-thriving retail software industry is being attacked--first by Microsoft's monopolistic tactics, now by crappy "me-too" free software. Yeah, you heard me. Virtually every single piece of free desktop software (and almost as much server software) is a cheap imitation of a retail product. When all the retail software companies are gone, then who are we going to copy?
Do you have any open source or free software suggestions?
- Java
- Flash
- Quicktime
- MP3
- DVD
- PDF
- Postscript
Are they out of luck n Brazil govt's 80% computers?Less is more !
SCO has given Brazil 30 days to cough up. Central Services have issued no response, in triplicate.
"but is making it mandatory going too far? " the issue is how can governmments be able to *control* the information provided/generated etc etc by the citizens remains available to everyone, and thus 'democratic'. With proprietary software, it is a business entity in control. I think letter (http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html), which slashdot already did a story on, summarizes why the open source licensing model is the only one which the government can use. Read it.
If that's true, you don't really know what you want. When a function is specified, the best tool emerges. These days, it's mostly free software that does it.
The 20% remainder will be more than enough for the rare case where the best tool for a job is not only non-free but also won't run on a non-free platform. Drafting is the only tricky area I can think of for free software, but ProE runs on Linux and QCAD is free software. How many draftsmen does government really need? In Engineering firms, fewer than 20% of desktops are used for CAD. Most general computing needs, text editing and simple data mainipulation, are well met by free software. As this is mostly what government offices do, free software is what they really need. For now, 20% is more than enough and it will only get better in the future.
Microsoft has painted itself into a corner by not playing nice with the rest of the world. Central organization can't compete with distributed efforts. By screwing any and all who would make programs that run on M$, M$ has left it's OS devoid of excellence. Very few Best Tools can be found on Microsoft platforms anymore. Brazil is doing itself a huge favor by dumping inferior and eXPensive software.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
You are mistaken. Try it sometime. Copy all files from a bootable partition to another bootable partition. You will find that some files did not copy. That's why Norton Ghost and PowerQuest DriveImage boot to DOS.
Nope. People in the free software world modify their software to do exactly what they want. This is one of those reasons there's so much good quality free software available. If you can't find exacly what you need, which is rare if you break the task into it's parts, you can make the tool you lack.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Part of GNU/linux and the GPL is freedom, and making it mandatory does not support freedom.
however, I am glad they chose linux.
So, will we finally be able to do our taxes in Linux?
If your going to mandate then for crying out loud mandate. Dump windows in the name of national security if nothing else. For a country as poor as Brazil to turn up the chance to use free software seems ludicrous. Why pay for any of it? And why should the U.S. government for that reason?
Brazil - Home of the... home of the ... home of... Henry Tuttle? Who cares what Brazil does or doesn't do really.
.
Free software's philosophy is that it's free and therefore that's what must be used. No proprietary software ever.
Open's philosophy is that open source will produce good code, but where open/free isn't available or good enough then you should use proprietary.
So mandating the use of free software is very much in the spirit of the FSF. So an win for RMS rather than Linus (who is an Open software advocate).
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Just back-up machines incase OpenOffice or something is having trouble reading .doc?
à engraÃado notar como os comentÃrios aqui confundem o termo CÃdigo Aberto (Open-Source) e Software Livre (Free-software). A maior discussão destas pessoas é sobre o fato do uso da palavra "mandatÃrio", ou seja, obrigatÃrio, representar ao seu ver uma quebra dos direitos individuais. Qualquer bom jurista ou advogado sabe que não existe liberdade sem o cerceamento da mesma. Estamos falando de liberdade da comunidade, e as liberdades individuais são reprimidas nos pontos onde entram em conflito com a da comunidade. Vocà não pode sair por aà dando tiros nos outros, vocà tem esta liberdade cerceada para proteger a comunidade. O software livre enxerga que o software proprietÃrio é prejudicial à sociedade, e portanto deve ser combatido. Simplificando, o software livre é ético e socialmente justo. Quando se fala no governo cuidar da populaÃão com projetos para fornecer comida, habitaÃão, escola e saÃde gratuitamente, todo mundo entende, porquà não pode entender com o software e a inclusão digital? O software Livre é somente um pedaÃo da imensa revoluÃão social que hà por vir.
Ricardo Andere de Mello
Presidente da ONG Quilombo Digital
www.quilombodigital.org
I'm not exactly sure ... It all depends ..
..." on this. The best application will eventually win. No matter if it's free or not.
... There's a company policy about the whole thing.
...
If you read that as "mandatory use of IT/computers" or "mandatory use of free software".
Both are bad, one being worse than the other - that is, "mandatory use of free software".
In a really free environment, people should be allowed to use what ever they want. If they like application X better, which cost $XXX, than appplication Y that cost $0 they should be allowed to buy the preferred app - if the economics department can allow that.
And there's no "on the other hand
Unless
But "mandatory" just leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If you can say it will be mandatory software - it can also mean mean that it will be mandatory to use a tie
If possible, let the people decide what they want to use.
That will lead to better productivity.
We also have to avoid the portrayal of Smith that was promoted by Karl Marx and Max Weber which is far more prevalent in schools and is far more more skewed than the interpretation developed by free marketers.
You are totally right. For the most part The Wealth of Nations is a descriptive work. Smith talks about about how people invest their labors, and how they use their labor to produce stock that they use as the basis to build more goods. He leaves it to the reader to derive that property ownership is good.
He also has examples that imply that cultures with different notions of property rights have different standards of living. That is nations with primitively defined notions of property tend to be poor.
He spends a great deal of time describing how the existence of physical stock and the reinvestment of this stock makes the nation grow richer, but, again does not say that that the existence of the stock is contigent on ownership is good. Most of that is left as implications.
Only occasionally does he break out in philosophical rhetoric about the sacredness of property to the individual. e.g.
But for the most part, the book is descriptive, and it is up to the audience to infer from the fact that the majority of the book is about investing labor and receiving gain from labor that somehow ownership of the produce from labor plays a part.
As I recall, Darwin didn't spend that much time talking abou evolution in the "The Origins of the Species." For the most part it seemed to contain descriptions of species and fossils.
What are you talking about, man? You make it sound that to save in .rtf format, you have to whistle the Hakuna Matada at double time in a Brazilian blues style in 5/4 time while juggling five quantum razors in your left hand and cooking a creme brule with the other.
.rtf
WRONG!
All you do is 'save as', and select
More FUD from a Zealot. As usual.
That's not necessarily the case. Unfortunately, our bureaucracy is just that- bureaucratic, confused and incompetent. If they get it right, it'll be wonderful, and not only because- we'll have the single largest linux-trained operation (or whatever OS they feel like) in the WORLD, and that's a hell of an advantage.
The problem is that our illustrious government doesn't quite have a good history of implementing new technology. It's kind of hit-and-miss; sometimes it works out great, sometimes it just plain sucks.
-----
Score 3? For what? Being wrong, at length? - smirkleton
I think the best description is that open source and property rights are independent of each other, which is why people can argue for it from both a nationalistic point of view as well as from a libertarian point of view.
I can publish all of my source code and still claim the patent and copyright to the material. Advancing knowledge is not anti market.
Likewise, A nation dictating that only OSS can be used is not a contradiction to the notion of OSS.
In some regards, OSS has an element of reaction to the monopolies held by the big software firms. In this regards, I can see how OSS can be hijacked by those opposed to market economies.
The Brazilian mandate is interesting because it highlights how OSS is independent of the notion of the free market. It also makes me suspect that we are likely to see other nations jumping on the OSS wagon for anti-US and nationalistic reasons.
I would disagree strongly with this statement. Software and ideas have tremendous value. Knowledge has value that way exceeds most pieces of physical property.
The struggle has been to find a way for these extremely valuable contributions to acheive an economic reward. The whole copyright/patent thing was an attempt to give economic rewards to the advancement of knowledge.
"This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far?"
mandatory is the usual tool some "democratic" "socialist" in other words "really really cool" countries use out there and use continously. Thats what they are so "cool" and so "democratic"(note that im being ironic here)... most of north americans problably dont understand what im saying cause you problably still think there are ony 1 comunist flavour and other urban legends like that, but hey, there arent(insert big shock here!). In fact brazil is "cool", lula gave property tittles to the people of the "fabelas" and made linux mandatory. Now they are free and will go to heaven when they die, not like the rest of us motherfucking corrupts agents of wyrm.
When i grow up i want to be "cool".And allways keep that in mind:
mandatory=cool=freedom=weapon sales tax.
hope i helped you to clarify this subject. lol
I could've sworn I saw this article here a day or two ago.
What mainstream category of software doesn't have an OpenSource counterpart.
A counterpart with the same feature set or even close to it?
Dreamweaver
Photoshop
Pagemaker
Publisher
The GIMP doesn't have the pantone tools and other features that make Photoshop a must in the image area. Quanta and Bluefish can't begin to touch Dreamweaver. Latex? Great, but not as easy as Pagemaker or Publisher (I think that's the right equivalent)
I can't comment on your specific needs, since I have not done that type of project, but here is how I would do the necessary research.
g em ent§ion=projects&x=12&y=9
g e= 1&IdPublication=3&NrIssue=1l .org/
Many Open Source projects are listed on http://www.freshmeat.net
So I would use there search engine to look for 'web content management' here is link to that search:
http://freshmeat.net/search/?q=web+content+mana
It listed 147 results for me. Now all those will not be suitable and many will be 'dead projects' (either they never got off the ground or they are no longer active).
Since you may need assistance and will want people you can reach I would look at the dates added and updated. I would want a project that was added at least a year ago and has been updated at least once recently (personally I would look for an update in 2003).
Once you see such project look at the home page for as much information as you can, you want FAQs, screenshots, documentation, etc. See if there is away to contact the developers, etc. Make a list of your questions and see how many are answered in their information, then try contacting them with anything that you can't find. Hopefully, you will get a prompt response (not necessarily immediately, but hopefully with in a couple of days -- this is usually a side project so the person may not be able to respond right away).
Also, another question for you, you said the website will be hosted on a commercial server -- does the hosting company support Linux? Most likely Apache web server? Also, will they install the content management software you select and update the OS to have the needed libraries? If not, what do they supply and what options do you have to update the content? If they dictate everything, then you will need to see if their setup gives you want you need. For example, if you can only update the content by FTPing files to the web server, then the choice of desktop page editing software and FTP software are what you would need to look at.
Assuming that you can load content management software here are a few that looked interesting -- note I did not review the entire list of 147, just the first 40 or so and have never used any of them.
http://www.campware.org/look/index.tpl?IdLangua
http://www.dcp-porta
http://drupal.org/
One consideration that you will need to check is language support -- these ones all support multiple languages, but since this is an Asian Sports Association do you need specific character support for the asian languages or will the site use English?
On switching your people from Windows to Linux, you might want to give them some information on comparitive license costs for Windows based software and any extra hardware costs (Windows applications can need more disk space and memory than some Linux/OS choices), etc. Point out that by saving money on this the budget can cover other things, nice furniture, additional salary, etc., assuming that this is the case.
As for training, since users will only be using the new system, as long as training is comprehensive I think they will be fine with it.
For the techs, you can point out that this expands their resumes with new skills, be sure to provide as much training stuff as you can (books, videos, classes if possible).
If you already have techs you are in contact with, have them participate in the research. Give them your guidelines and part of the list. Then when the initial research is done, compare candidates and have everyone make suggestions. Being part of the tool selection will go a long way in diffusing the 'mandated from on high' feelings that some might get, as long as it is understood that you make the final choice (unless you want to have a vote).
Also, being able to 'look under the hood' is an experience that most tech like, and that has been growing more difficult to do with MS products each year.
Sorry that it so long winded, but I hope that this gives you some ideas on proceeding with your project. Good luck!
Remember the article about the Spanish gov'ts decision to move to Linux?
Is migration to linux a cost issue or a culture issue? What pushes hardest for migration? Cost? Availability? Language? Gov't structure? Is there a pattern in the news about linux migrating to XYZ type of organization? Which slice of the community has the largest possible impact in terms of migration?
Clearly when a gov't embraces linux the news is pretty loud. But, who were the people who put the linux idea into the gov't officials heads'? Was it grass roots? In who's backyard? Technicians? Academia? Industry?
dgd
You DO know that without copyright law the GPL is unenforcable, right?
Just because they nickname the GPL "copyleft", doesn't mean it doesn't depend on copyright law.
"However, I suspect that it will be anti-US and nationalistic attitudes of countries like Brazil that will bring the OSS revolution to fruition."
ItÂs not an anti-US action, it is all about trying to have the most affordable solution. Brazil is a poor country and we are currently cutting costs everywere. ItÂs better doing this by saving money with M$ licenses than saving money with education and health care.
Brazil is also a large country with population about 180,000,000 distributed over an area 8,511,965 sq km (which is more than US, if you donÂt consider Alaska). I donÂt have many estimates about how many computers our government has, or how many M$ licenses per year are acquired, but I hope it will save us mony and improve our IT knowledge and skills.
We are not India, but we are ready for that. After all IT local costs are low. I have a MSc and BSc degree in CS on a top brazilian university and my salary is less than U$ 15,000 per year. And I am currently unemployed, I think if our government invests in local techonology it will help our country as a whole.
This is a big win for Linux, but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
Actually, the best tool for the job always is an open source product. It just might not have been created yet.
If using all open-source products (with very few exceptions) is good enough for the FSF (now where's that link), why shouldn't it be good enough for Brazil? Err... Umm... Sure, why not? After all, they're just a non-profit organization of a larger size.
"The goal of the migration is to save money by finding alternatives to expensive proprietary licenses."
.doc files were freely available would it be allowed.
The benefits of free software that Peruvian congressman Eduard Villanueva (sp?) cites include zero licensing cost, but that is hardly "the goal" of his proposal to require free (speech) software in government, but at best a bonus. If you recall his letter (it appears no longer to exist) to the General Manager of Microsoft Peru, he articulates a few fundamental principles of an open democratic society governing the indefinite preservation and free availability of public government information. These principles have among their consequences truths such as that public information that the government publishes digitally must be in a format the structure of which is publically known. This requirement is not met when such information is published in a proprietary and secret format controlled by an entity such as a corporation (and especially a foreign corporation).
He concludes that only software for which the source code is freely available is a wisely chosen basis on which to build the civil infrastructure of a free democratic society. This rules out publishing with Microsoft Word.
The fact that the Brazillian government has made no mention of such reasons shows a weakness in their position and commitment. This movement will probably slow down when Microsoft offers a "deep discount" on licenses; it may even have been initiated for just such an end. In contrast, if the B.Gov. were motivated by such principles as Villanueva's, then Microsoft software would not be allowed even at a cost of zero; and only if the format of
Success could be OSS own demise. If there are not enough professionals to support what the law has required, if critical systems cannot get up and running, it will look bad for the revolution. Is the Linux community really prepared to have the personal computer infrastructures of the 20 largest countries simultaneously demanding their immediate attention? Failure could send them begging Microsoft for help.
People have been forced to use MS software for years. In order to really fix Open Source software, people will probably need to be forced to use it so that its issues are actually dealt with. I get the feeling that no-one who really writes is using OpenOffice (or whatever) to write, and no-one who really produces graphics is using GIMP. Until someone forces serious users to use these products they won't be fixed.
Most developing nations don't have English as their national language, so a lot of the "benefits" of doing things the Microsoft way are less apparent to begin with. (E.g. many of the rows and rows of Microsoft-product-related-books in your local Barnes & Nobel that folks buy when they can't figure out how to make their Excel spreadsheet work aren't translated into Portugese or Vietnamese.)
Microsoft and PC makers do a lot of dumping in the third world. E.g. in Viet Nam -- a country I have some experience with -- discontinued brand-name PCs are dumped on the market which serves the dual purpose of prepping the country for a full-priced MS invasion when it can afford it and getting rid of stock that would cut into margins in first world markets. Indeed, it's interesting that so much is made of piracy in such countries, since most of the PCs you see look like they would have come with bundled software.
It seems to me that many developing nations are not short of technical expertise, and developing local additions to a large Open Source base would be a good way of avoiding IT slavery, building up the national skill set, providing good localised software, and in general taking advantage of globalisation instead of being victimised by it.
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaa
a aa aaaaaaa
::panting::
NO ONE GIVES A FUCK WHAT R.M.S. OR YOU SAY!!!
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
As an aside, how many developers who use/release open source have even read the GNU Manifesto? Not very many (especially no one I know, myself included). Christ almighty this whole thread has me pissed now.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Maybe this will create jobs that are badly needed.
Since the collapse of the dot coms the computer industry is in really bad shape, I am a linux profesional and can not find anything on the market, barely making a living.
If they start offering good jobs for linux profesionals I might even go there.
I can read Spanish and English. I have read both the English translation and the original article and I couldn't find anything stating that the move to OSS is "mandatory". Both articles don't mention any law that dictates the choise.
What I read is that the Brazilian goverment have chosen to migrate around 80% of its machines to Linux as a way to save some money. As a by-product, they seem to believe that this move may encourage private companies to do the same and that it may foster local software development. The reasons seem fair to me. It seems that the pros and cons have already been considered and a decision was made.
Moreover the article points out that the change will be slowly and carefuly made. They will first evaluate a pilot project. Hence the decision may still change based on the output. Such way of doing things does not combine with the word "madatory" from the slashdot article.
Yet about brazilian IT costs:
Brazilian unemplyment rate soars over 20% which affects the whole economy, which includes the IT sector. Even if Open Software solutions are not free, if they donÂt cost more (including training) than proprietary software, I think this is a big win.
Instead of some of the parallel things where they "standardize" on something like excel or word with such a narrow definition that you can only use OfficeXP on 2000.
If you read, it will be a gradual migration, but it says it is for cost reasons.
Also it is quite possible that it will allow running Windows under VMWare or something similar if required.
The two biggest reasons are cost and licensing, the latter generally going toward the silly (like MS demanding a windows license for each iMac in an Oregon school system).
The other thing the mandate bypasses is the years of wrangling where they will continue to upgrade Windows while people with kickbacks "need just a few more months" every few months to prove that Windows is more economical overall than Linux.
What is more to be feared is the "choice" that is encumbered so that only one product qualifies. The sort of thing that you can use Linux (or Windows or Mac OS X) only if you provide hundreds of pages of justification that you don't have to do otherwise.
It may be a simple case of that. If the Brazilian government does not want to buy Licensing 6.0 and MS basically said that would be the only way they would provide (cut-rate) Windows and office licenses, it doesn't leave much else.
Left out of the discussion is Apple and Mac OS X which is partially free. It is an example of a hybrid open-closed system that seems to be working quite well.
but is making it mandatory going too far? It would seem wiser to support a solution that favors the best tool for the job, which may not always be an open source product.
I don't mean to troll but did those lines stick out like a sore thumb to anyone else?
Stop pretending you're unbiased or have any shred of journalistic integrity/sense Taco, at this point it just comes across as majorly lame. Stick to posting dupes and working on your grahmer.
I think the answer is probably going to be 'stick with windows', in your case. If you have 10,000 desktops, things would be more complicated.
It sounds like you want to use Linux, but can't really justify it. You certainly shouldn't bet your business on Linux just because it sounds good.
lastly, you'll find that much OSS software runs on Windows anyway, so you can still use the free software you want anyway.
As the world is largely using separate systems on all of those.. except metric, where the US is one of the only places left who does not.
You pick and choose where it makes sense. Sure, fair enough. I guess the rest of the world is just incompetent, and switched all at once, eh?
It's not a big deal because you are the only one left, and you only have to worry about converting to one other system.
I don't think the government of Brazil is going to be the next Pixar
e ad er$107
Pixar is pretty much a Linux shop these days.
http://linux.bryanconsulting.com/stories/storyR
"As an aside, how many developers who use/release open source have even read the GNU Manifesto? "
Perhaps they should before blindly following his religion?
" Not very many (especially no one I know, myself included). "
Well I've long been of the opinion that those who are angered by my statements are ignorant. The fact that you are proud of your ignorance does in no way invalidate my points.
The mandate for open-source is not religious... is economical!
The Brazilian government decision was very simple: OSS is cheaper than MS (90% or more from the computers in Brazil use a MS OS). The government needs is cutting costs from all areas to have more money to spend in social programs. The external debt from Brazil is enormous, it must be paid but people here need some assistance due a fantastic desintegration of all social areas in the last 20 years (social including education, health, habitation, infra-structure, eletricity generation, you name it...)
An added bonus: the largest MS supplier is TBA, a MS representant from Brasilia (Brazil's capital).
TBA is the largest MS distributor in Brazil, due a very curious clause among MS resellers in Brazil: TBA was the only distributor authorized to sell MS products to Brazil's government due to territorial restriction clauses that gave TBA a virtual monopoly to sell MS products to the government.
That clause was imposed by Microsoft itself to the others MS LARs (Large Account Resellers).
MS and TBA were sued by the Secretaria de Direito EconÃmico (a department of Brazil's Ministry of Justice) and were fined due to abusive prices, inclusion of services in the software price's, artificially high prices for government sellings.
With a problem like that, a strong lobby from MS to push it's products among schools, the "donation"programs were the software is given "for free" but an annual renovation license is needed and a financial problem to solve the mandate seems a logic way to go, since nobody wants to change to OSS due financial advantages for some involved parts.
I'd go along with Photoshop and Quark as being irreplaceable in Linux. However I think Dreamweaver and it's ilk are not acceptable for professional level HTML work and wouldn't let anyone reporting to me use it.
MS Publisher - I don't know anyone who has ever used it.
LaTeX is not at all in the same domain as Pagemaker. Two completely different ballgames.
Here's a hint for future interpersonal communications: People don't like other people sitting up in ivory towers and telling them what to do. This includes you and your "points", which consist of insubstantial personal attacks and holier-than-thou statements.
Why do you continue to post on a website that 1) you obviously hate, and 2) that you make absolutely no reasonable contribution to the discussions on? No, personal attacks (Those communist GNU hippies) and generalizations (All GNU users are simpleminded herd-followers) don't count as reasonable discussion. That may be news to you, but someone had to break it.
You might find that if you construct reasonable arguments that are actually relevant to your audience and don't consist simply of abrasive ad hominems, people might actually listen to you instead of assuming you are just another troll. Because, you know, your posts sound just like any other run of the mill troll -- except you actually seem to believe what you say. Which is the only reason I'm allowing myself to be trolled by responding :P
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
As I said, I really don't care.
It's just funny. Obviously, if you are in the US, you will naturally defend your amazing system of measurement, and not understand why the rest of the world sees this resilience as funny.
Neverthless, it's funny.
If the only thing that distinguishes you from me is that you know I'm an idiot, then you must also be an idiot and not know it. That should be okay because I won't know it either. Except... I do :)
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
I use PHP/Postgresql for this sort of thing. It's far better than Access after you build up a code base.
You are mistaken. Try it sometime. Copy all files from a bootable partition to another bootable partition. You will find that some files did not copy. That's why Norton Ghost and PowerQuest DriveImage boot to DOS.
s xp/home/using/prod uctdoc/en/default.asp?url=/windowsxp/home/using/pr oductdoc/en/ntbackup_backup_snapshot.asp
t /treeview/default. asp?url=/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/prdg_ dsm_vtrj.asp
Excuse me, did you even read what I wrote or were you in such a hurry to knock XP that what I said was not important.
Of course you CANNOT do a file COPY or a XCOPY of in-use (locked) files in WindowsXP due to the file and security protections in NTFS. Duh, this is part of the basis of what the NTFS security and locking model is based upon. Even FAT/FAT32 has basic file locking mechanisms to prevent this.
However, WindowsXP has a feature called 'Volume Shadow Copy' - you can find it in the services on any XP machine if you don't believe it exists.
Using this service (as the WindowsXP Backup program does) allows XP to back up any and all files on a NTFS volume.
It will even allow backing of in-use and inter-transaction files â" like database files. (This is truly a brilliant technology.)
This is a feature and service available in WindowsXP that other applications can access and use to do backups, or copy files, or copy an entire partition, just like WindowsXP backup can.
Additionally, in regard to your generic example of copying a bootable partition, if you boot from another NTFS partition you can copy a bootable partition on another NTFS drive all day long as long as the files are not locked. We use this method to make images and backups of NTFS drives all the time, so even with your generic example, you are wrong.
Next time before opening mouth, actually know what you are talking about, actually read the post, and try doing a little research for yourself, I'll start you off:
Try-----------
http://www.microsoft.com/window
Or------------
http://www.microsoft.com/techne
The smaller the mind, the more ignorance it can hold. â" Unknown
I say mainstream because I don't think the government of Brazil is going to be the next Pixar.
what pixar does is 100% impossible with windows software and operating systems....
you cant use a rinky dinky OS like XP or 2000 to do imprtant things like a renderfarm.
is a menace to democracy around the world
"This is a big win for Linux...". While this may indeed be a big win for Linux, I'd just like to point out that free/OSS does not necessarily mean that Linux will be the choice. They could easily decide to standardize on FreeBSD.
First, your hostile behavior is completely unacceptable, even if you are technically correct in what you are saying.
Second, you are replying to a very long article which mentions many, many issues. Even if you were correct that the article is in error, it would be a mistake only in a small percentage of the article.
Third, it is you who is mistaken. My article, Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. clearly references a Microsoft article: Q314828 Microsoft Policy on Disk Duplication of Windows XP Installation. That Microsoft article references another article: Using Disk-Image Copying in Microsoft Windows Deployment. In the second article, Microsoft says: "Finally, you may use a process known as disk-image duplication to deploy additional corporate desktop systems. (This disk imaging/duplication process can be accomplished using third-party software or hardware created for this purpose. Microsoft does not offer such a utility.)"
The meaning of "Microsoft does not offer such a utility" is that there is no way to copy a fully installed version of Windows XP using Windows XP alone. The "third-party utilities" such as Norton Ghost and PowerQuest DriveImage and PowerDeploy boot to DOS and do sector-by-sector copies.
Volume Shadow Copy cannot make a working copy of a fully-installed disk containing Windows XP. Your post seems to indicate that you have not tried this yourself, but only seen others do it. I've tried it, and it doesn't work. I've asked Microsoft, and they agree. Who is correct, Microsoft and I, or you?
what's the big deal about using the best tool for thejob.
nobody every does that. it's all politics and whims.
most people use windows, and it's worst tool for
almost any job.
If something isn't secure from exploitation if you know the source, then it isn't really secure from exploitation, and it's just a weak system waiting to be exploited. The military need not use confidential software; they only need have confidential information. Sure, some "black" software is used in the military; but that can be called neither proprietary nor FOSS. It is simply top secret black software. This means that not only is it top secret, but the government doesn't even acknowledge it's existence. An example would be whatever software was used for modeling radar reflection for the production of the F-117 and B -2.
The information which produced that software, however, is available in a Russian scientific paper.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Spread some more anti-FOSS FUD, while you're at it. In most areas, FOSS is either at level or ahead of proprietary software technologically.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
A counterpart with the same feature set or even close to it?
Dreamweaver
Jesus christ, where to even start with this one... What the hell does the govt need Dreamweaver for? Does the word "accessiblity" mean anything to you? Code the f'ing website in some basic HTML and be done with it.
Photoshop ... The GIMP doesn't have the pantone tools and other features that make Photoshop a must in the image area.
Blah blah blah. Why does the friggin govt need to be concerned with pantone colors to any significant extent? Just where the hell are my tax dollars going? Go play with yourself on your own damn dime, not mine.
Pagemaker
This is my govt you're talking about. Give me HTML or text, a format that I can at least read.
Publisher
Ditto
and other features that make Photoshop a must in the image area. Quanta and Bluefish can't begin to touch Dreamweaver. Latex? Great, but not as easy as Pagemaker or Publisher (I think that's the right equivalent)
Blah blah blah. Way to totally go out in left field. Did you even bother to read the Slashdot summary on this one, or just start replying to random posts?
Here is my Prediction
Brazil is probably going to get some civil war, see the rise of some viloent groups or an economic meltdown.
Why?
They are playing with FIRE. They have just ticked off one of the most powerful corporation in the world with links to the most powerful agencies in the world. I am pretty sure Brazil is going to pay for this foolishness.
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that Brazil made a wrong choice in that I don't like it. I really like their decision. But I am no-one, but Microsoft and those agencies are not. They have power. REAL Power. Brazil should be more cautious, and should have been a little more subtle.
It is terribly short-sighted to allow the use of
closed-source solutions in cases where a
reasonable development investment can create an
open-source tool. The open-source tool will
continue to develop in response to the particular
needs of the agency, and serve other agencies
in the future at no additional cost, while the
proprietary solution will only cost more money
as it is used increasingly.
In short, the open-source solution costs less and
less per installation over time, whereas the
proprietary one often costs more and more.
The 80% number leaves abundant wiggle-room for
those rare cases where the development investment
or latency of producing a novel open source
solution where none exists, but a proprietary one
is feasible. That number should be gradually
pushed upwards, over time, however, so that the
long-term economies of open-source solutions can
be more thoroughly exploited for the public
benefit.
Public funds should be used in the public interest,
not to enrich a foreign monopolist.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
"Open source" is not equivalent to "I'm a dirty GNU hippy"
I DON'T CARE what RMS or anyone else says and dI o what I damn fucking well please.
Yes, I am angered by your statements, and yes I am ignorant. I am ignorant to RMS's blathing idiocy and utopian vision. I am ignorant to your warped, stereotypical, one-track mindset.
Yes, my proud ignorance does in no way invalidate your points, as you have not made any that aren't any more insightful than a lowly, cut-n-paste trollaxor.
In short, I think we should all move to Brazil, because I saw the uncut European version of the movie and they had great hair.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Bill Clinton understood that.
Nowhere does the Spanish article or its English translation state that the government of Brazil has made open source mandatory. It states that the government of Brazil chose free software because they believe it to be more trustworthy and reliable. It also says that they are conducting a pilot project within one ministry and that the project will be completed over a period of three years. When I did the quick translation and sent it to PCLinuxonline, I did so because the cited Spanish news source appeared to be the first organization reporting on it widely and because I thought it deserved further analysis and scrutiny. I believe Mr. Stanco created a strawman, maybe unintentionally, and that both Linux Today and now Slashdot fell for that strawman by restating that Brazil is indeed mandating open source. By arguing against something that the article never claimed, Mr. Stanco only leaves to wonder whether he actually even read the short summary or the other articles available in the Brazilian media. Making a choice about what software makes it easier for Brazil's government to respect the constitutional rights of its citizens to privacy and transparency of data seems like a perfectly legitimate choice to me. The fact that they will realize significant savings as a result also seems sensible for a nation facing severe economic problems. Ps: One note to all the Brazilians noting that the word in Portuguese is livre and used "software libre". This is not a mistake in my part. The words software libre are widely used and well known in English. I know many English speakers who prefer the terms software libre to the English "free software" because the former make it patently clear that we are talking about freedom not cost. It is in light of this usage that I felt and feel that the terms "software libre" are appropriate. People immediately understand the "libre" as in "liberty" where as the free as in speech not beer often gets you puzzled looks. Good day.
Pragmatism as an ideology is not particularly pragmatic in the long term. Keep it in mind when you dismiss Free Software
Shouldn't they be using a real open source OS rather than GPL-tainted toys?
>>OSS pretty much started as a reaction to the Microsoft monopoly.
>Wrong. Stallman started the whole ball rolling (formally) in the 80s, way before MS was anywhere near a monopoly. It was started simply because Stallman didn't like not having the ability to tinker with source code of some stuff he was coming across.
Just maybe Stallman didn't get the ball rolling. Maybe the the emergence of a global network, (incidentally Pentagon's Internet), made sharing code and cooperationg on code easier.
Jesus christ, where to even start with this one... What the hell does the govt need Dreamweaver for? Does the word "accessiblity" mean anything to you? Code the f'ing website in some basic HTML and be done with it.
I really don't understand that attitude. Dreamweaver gives you the ability to check your code for browser compliance, various html specs, and even section 508 government accessibility standards. You can write decent html if you want or just use it like a word processor and then check compliance with just about any standard you want.
Did you even bother to read the Slashdot summary on this one, or just start replying to random posts?
Not at random, no. I'm responding to the post that suggested there were functional equivalents in linux to most windows programs. There aren't.
If they didn't mandate it, the "mordida" culture of Brazil would take over, and software vendors could just bribe the heads of agencies to buy non-OSS software.
Explaining why software libre is the best tool for the State requirements:
The Digital Crossroad(OK, this is a bit of a plug; I'm one of the authors)
If you are interested in the free software/state relation, you might find the whole site (ProposiciÃn) interesting.
You don't have to replace your entire system with OSS solutions, you can focus on your most expensive pieces. If you will be needing to purchase an office productivity suite then maybe you should look at OpenOffice.org. For database management, maybe MySQL or postgreSQL are options.
Once you have experience with working with OSS solutions then expanding your use won't be so hard to justify.
The dogcow says "Moof!"
GregÃrio Jordão is the most famous TROLLer in Brazilian newsgroups, donÂt give a shit to what he says...
They're finally wising up. No government with a grain of sense would buy software whose inner workings are unknowable and unfixable. Especially not from a big foreign-owned company that doesn't have your interests at heart.
So when would the US Gov start to "wise up"? Or do you really think that cuz Bill is american he gives a shit?
Stop stalking me you fucking pervert.
:P "
"People don't like other people sitting up in ivory towers and telling them what to do."
Which is why I hate your ideology so much.
Consumers should have the right to choose and purchase any product that they want. The fact that you consider companies producing products has no relevancy on their choice. If you don't like the products THEN DON'T BUY THEM!
"Which is the only reason I'm allowing myself to be trolled by responding
Huh? Following up to every one of my posts is stalking. You weren't trolled, you followed me here.
Mandating the use of OSS for an organization as large as a national level government is good.
Another idea that would be equally as good (IMO) and would also rustle less feathers (at least here in the US) would be to mandate the use of Open file formats. I.e. Word, Excel, Powerpoint, to name a few, are no longer acceptable formats.
Open file formats would allow the use of any conforming software at each region/department/agency while maintaining compatability with the rest.
It would also level the playing field and allow die hard microsoft fans to see the true power and flexibility of Linux without being blinded by this file format "gotcha" which still plagues Windows to Linux migrations.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.