Telstra To Put Linux On Desktop

StArSkY writes "The Australian has an article today outlining how Telstra, Australia's largest Telco, is switching to Linux and open source on the desktop. Their pilot has been quite successful, and improved stability has been noticed. On trial are Star Office, Gnome, Mozilla and Wyse. Spending AUD$1.5 Billion a year on IT, means Telstra using Open Source is a massive boost to Open Source developers and support professionals. Not mentioned in the Article is that Telstra also just Dumped IBM Global Services, and will be running IT in-house again! Telstra will be hiring Linux-savvy people I think..."

Comments

hey steve

[b17bmbr]

better book that flight for down under, mate.

Re:hey steve

[Anonymous Coward]

He was already here and obviously failed his mission.

Re:hey steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Aussie Aussie Aussie OI OI OI

Telstra is f**ken huge, this is a big deal in Australia.

Telstra was a monopoly till fairly recently (about 15 years ago they got their first competitor) and they still control all the telephone ground lines in Australia.

If Telstra adopts Linux/GNU, there will be thousands of desktops using OSS software and more importantly $US millions spent on research and development, most of which will be put back into the OSS community.

Re:hey steve

[JohnnyKlunk]

Nice thought, but if they're planning on cutting IT costs in half, thats not ALL going to be MS licencing costs.
If they do cut $750 million from their IT budget alot of that is going to come in the form for Australian IT workers (be they working for Telstra or IBM).

Re:hey steve

[goonerw]

Steve had already tried that but it was like talking to a brick wall since the leader of the project is a Sun supporter.

Re:hey steve

[azzy]

An Ozzie sun supporter? Probably a bronzed lifeguard, swaggering around going on about how much sun they get down there, and muttering about slip slap slop and other gibberish.

Re:hey steve

[SamDrake]

Er...in the same day they (1) switched to Linux, and (2) the network went down. D'oh! :-) http://www.cellular-news.com/story/9637.shtml

Re:hey steve

[SEWilco]

Ballmer went there in 2002. He couldn't make them see unreason.

Re:hey steve

[Anonymous Coward]

Pssst. They haven't switched yet ;)

Re:hey steve

[jo42]

Outsource to India...

Gupta and Habib in Bangalore

Gupta: Habib! Habib!! The server went down in America^H^H^H^H^H^H^HAustralia...!

Habib: Oh my goodness gracious, what are we going to do???

Re:hey steve

[BuR4N]

"better book that flight for down under, mate."

If he hurry he might be able to get a seat next to Mr. McBride

Re:hey steve

[Cheetahfeathers]

Gupta: Please do the needful!

Re:hey steve

[puggled]

most of which will be put back into the OSS community.

I'd like to think this was true, but I often see companies who switch to using Linux internally and yet still won't give any support externally. The best connection software for telstra broadband (at least satelite but I think others) is found on sourceforge and not written or supported at all by telstra.

Now I know that supporting linux with all the different distros isn't always simple, but even if they offered a couple of the major ones would be a start.

If they give back to the OSS community that's great, but if they were really interested in OSS then they might take it a step further.

Re:hey steve

[Nefarious Wheel]

Actually, they'll save about $1.5B in licensing costs over three years, by my last count. I know that they'll be wanting to slow down the replacement rate of their 45,000 desktops by going thin client.

A huge amount of stuff is going to need to be converted to a web services architecture, so I suspect they'll need to spend big to save big; that means work for internal developers, big time. Since they've been so COTS oriented they have a lot fewer real programmers than they need.

I've worked there, and I know a lot of projects are constantly being re-written because of slow waves of moderninsing change across their architecture, sort of like painting the Sydney Harbour Bridge -- finish at one end and you're ready to start on the other again. They've got so far to go before they look like a coherent services firm that only a standards-based WS buildout on their architecture holds any hope.

Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[kubrick]

They're a pack of lying monopolistic bastards who break the law at every opportunity, employ deceptive advertising practices and screw every other telecom company in the country sideways. They're still half government owned, so we get the worst of both worlds in that respect.

Regarding their use of Linux, "even the Devil may cite Scripture for his purpose".

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're a pack of lying monopolistic bastards who break the law at every opportunity, employ deceptive advertising practices and screw every other telecom company in the country sideways. They're still half government owned, so we get the worst of both worlds in that respect

Enough about Microsoft, tell us what you think about Telstra?

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[krymsin01]

The effects that this will cause have to be examined. Some of the comments on this seem to be a little bit too enthusastic.

Telstra is a company of questionable ethics, do you think they are looking at this from the OSS comunity's point of view? No, they are looking to exploit it. They are trying to cut costs, which in the long run is easiest to take care of by reducing how many people you need to maintain the network. If that's their goal, then what's going to happen here is that your software, if you have code that is going to be used their, is going to be exploited to create fewer IT jobs.

Sure, they are supposed to contribute source back in, but what's to stop them if they don't. AFAIK, nobody has ever been forced by law to contribute source back in. Then again, mabey they will.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[hiroko]

They're still half government owned, so we get the worst of both worlds in that respect

Enough about Microsoft, tell us what you think about Telstra

Nah, MS owns half the government.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[steveduck]

Enought!! You compliment them too much. Telstra are nowhere near that nice. I would rather have rabid pitbulls strapped to my genitals than deal with the Telstra hellspawn.
Since the partial government selloff they have stripped all departments, especially R&D, of the smart and useful people who had designed, created and built the largest single phone system in the world. Now they claim to switch to Linux. Who will run and maintain these systems if they sacked all the UNIX wizards and let sub-contractors (IBM, M$)build a Win front to the existing core?
Lily Tomlin's Telephone Woman is a Sister Teresa compared to their helldesk or service dept.
Die Telstra Die

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

"lying monopolistic bastards"

This is something that most ex-goverment companies turned private have in common. Telecommunication companies like Telia (Sweden) and Telenor (Norway) are exactly like that. Our goverments are so moronic that they think small independent companies can compete on fair grounds with these behemoths. In Norway, the private company Netcom got lucky and tapped in on the virgin land of digital cellphones in the early 90's.

Together with Telenor, they have a monopoly in GSM infrastructure and take whatever price is good for them. Just lately have serious goverment intervention made it possible for virtual operators to rent talk time on the infrastucture and push the prices down.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Gavin Rogers]

They're a pack of lying monopolistic bastards who break the law at every opportunity

I'm no fan of Telstra, but lets step back a bit here. Telstra don't break the law at every opportunity - they're not that stupid/evil. They do bend the rules whenever it suits them - legal law breaking!

Telstra is an amazing business. It has near-monopolistic control over every market it enters (all telecommunications, cable TV, Internet), yet its prices are definately not competitive.

If no-one was ever sacked for buying IBM, then there must be a lot of companies that say, "you can't go wrong buying from Telstra".

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Neurotensor]

On a more positive note, there's gonna be a lot of ex-phreaks who will be working on the inside...

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Mwongozi]

As far as I am aware, if they do not re-distribute the changes they make in binary form, they are under no obligation to re-distribute changes in the source either.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[afidel]

Sounds just like the baby Bell companies here in the US, they still have a stranglehold on the local loop and just bought themselves some laws and FCC rule changes that basically ensure it stays that way for another couple decades and prevents inovative competition like VoIP from becoming economically viable. Another stellar example is First Energy, the local power provider here in N.E. Ohio that is the likely cause of the recent large power outage.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[wondergibbon]

Well, it looks like hell's frozen over if there's penguins in their future.

On the serious side, as much as Telstra is everything described above, this is a big win for OSS generally. Telstra are so profit conscious they must see the TCO as being Linix's way. Looks like Steve Ballmer's FUD-laden visit to Siggy (the CEO of Telstra) was a waste fo his time, not ours.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're still half government owned, so we get the worst of both worlds in that respect

Enough about Microsoft, tell us what you think about Telstra

Nah, MS owns half the government.

yeah, the republican half.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

They're still half government owned, so we get the worst of both worlds in that respect

Enough about Microsoft, tell us what you think about Telstra?

In Soviet Russia... monopoly telco owns government.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[lgftsa]

Our goverments are so moronic that they think small independent companies can compete on fair grounds with these behemoths.

Come on, don't be naive. People in government are not stupid, they're usually in it for their own betterment - or if they wern't at the start, by the time they've been there long enough, they're looking to pay back favours or toward their own "retirement".

What better opportunity than to legally sell something that wasn't yours to sell, and guarantee your beneficiaries(board members, etc, not usually the shareholders(suckers)) a government-sponsored monopoly?

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Stephen Samuel]

Sure, they are supposed to contribute source back in, but what's to stop them if they don't. AFAIK, nobody has ever been forced by law to contribute source back in. Then again, mabey they will.

Actually, given that it's likely to be internal use only, there's no legal requirement for them to contribute any of those source changes back. They're only required to distribut source for copies that go to external users.

On the other hand, it's very much to their advantage to contribute most of their source changes back to the community, if it gets folded back into the main source tree. When that happens, it means that they don't have to keep track of the changes when they upgrade versions of the software, and support on those changes will tend to get done by others.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do you think every other telecom company would do if they have the chance.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[kubrick]

I'm no fan of Telstra, but lets step back a bit here. Telstra don't break the law at every opportunity - they're not that stupid/evil. They do bend the rules whenever it suits them - legal law breaking!

They may obey the letter of the law, but they rape the spirit of it. Every chance they get, they overlook or fail to provide services to the other telcos, or claim that it's technically impossible -- after the ACCC spends a couple of years chasing them over one issue, they back off on that one and in the meantime four or five similar issues have arisen. Local loop access is as good an example as any, or mobile phone number portability.

False customer testimonials, using pictures of drowning Americans and pretending they are Australian flood pictures, lying to customers regarding ADSL availability (until they sign up for Big Pond ADSL, of course)... I could keep on going, but it's really not necessary to anyone in this country who keeps themself informed about their behaviour.

Interesting to see that the stock price is still pretty low, despite the huge profits and near-monopolistic position they have; partially due to their 'half-pregnant' status of course, but still shows that the gambling public has the correct amount of faith in Ziggy, the board, and Tricky Dicky Alston, i.e. none at all.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Rogerborg]

If they make mods, they must license their modded code under GPL. They don't have to release the source outside their company, but if it, er, accidentally leaked out, there's not a damn thing that they could do to stop anyone from using it under those terms. Sure, they could sue the crap out of the leaker for breach of custard (or whatever), but they couldn't put the genie back in the bottle, something SCO is going to find out the hard way.

Another interesting point for debate. If an internal employee asked for the source to the modified OS, would Telestra have to make it available? Under the terms of the GPL, they must. Once you've got it, you can - again, under the GPL - distribute it without reference to whether Telestra allows you to or note. Anyone care to put it to the test?

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Rogerborg]

Here's how. Join Telestra as a 'phone drone. Demand a copy of the source for the modified OS that you'r eusing. If they refuse, instruct the kernel/app rights owners that Telestra are violating the GPL. If they give it to you, distribute it. They must license their modifications under the GPL, and that gives you the right to distribute, regardless of whether they want you to or not. They cannot attach a license or terms that override the GPL, or else they are in violation.

Oh, they'd sack and sue the crap out of you for breach of whatever, but I'm sure there's a stuuuudent or filthy socialist hippy out there willing to take them on.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[subreality]

I think you need to readjust your perspective.

They're not adopting Linux because it's good or bad for OSS. They're adopting Linux because it's good for them.

And in the end, that's what OSS's goal is: making the best software for whoever wants to use it. That includes companies. Even evil companies. And personally, I think that's just fine.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

You can add Telefonica (Spain) "got out" by the government to a childhood friend of our current government president. You can count on the whole lot: "golden shares", no true competition on the last mile, shielded contracts... something like two billion euros for less than a dozen people.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[johnnyb]

You are incorrect. The GPL says that redistribution within an organization does not count as redistribution.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Rogerborg]

>You are incorrect. The GPL says that redistribution within an organization does not count as redistribution.

It says no such thing. Quote the clause. If you're arguing that there's ambiguity over the meanings of "you" and "third party" then say that, but that's not what you said.

Here, I'll help you out. Sorry to bring facts into this, and god knows we like to discuss the GPL without actually reading it, but here's the entire text of the GPL. Identify the part that supports your assertion. While I'm at it, I'll remind you that the GPL license means only and exactly the text of the GPL. It's not any articles or opinions or addenda or errata, regardless of who wrote them. SCO doesn't get to re-interpret the text, and neither does RMS.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors' reputations.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't have to release the source outside their company, but if it, er, accidentally leaked out, there's not a damn thing that they could do to stop anyone from using it under those terms.
Sure. Copyright law. The GPL cannot compel a company to release code under these circumstances. If this does happen, it will be an interesting test of the ethics of the Open Source community.
If an internal employee asked for the source to the modified OS, would Telestra have to make it available? Under the terms of the GPL, they must.
Actually, they don't. You have an overly enthusiastic reading of the GPL.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Rogerborg]

Ah, but on the other hand, fuck you, coward. I grow tired of having this debate with yapping cuntrags that clearly haven't read nor understood the implications of the GPL. Here's the entire text. Go ahead and indicate the parts that make me wrong, or alternatively, fuck you.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to
your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".) Each

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[johnnyb]

From the FAQ - http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequir eSourcePostedPublic

"The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you."

According to the authors of the license, "internally within an organization" does not count as distribution.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but on the other hand, fuck you, coward.

The shriller the attack, the less likely the attacker is correct.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Grishnakh]

I don't see how using Free software will create fewer IT jobs. Sure, they'll have to lay off a bunch of know-nothing MCSEs who just run around all day and reboot machines. But they'll also have to hire knowledgable IT workers who know Unix/Linux.

Even more important, the article itself stated they were dumping IBM Global Services and using in-house IT staff, meaning they'll surely have to boost their IT hiring to make up for that. Sure, that sucks if you're an IBM employee, but not if you're looking for a job with Telstra.

In the end, there probably will be a few less people employed in total because of this move, but that's not a bad thing since people who weren't doing useful jobs (MCSEs, managers for those MCSEs, IBM overhead personnel) won't be needed anymore, but highly-trained Unix people will now have a place to work. The overall efficiency will be much higher, without anyone's job getting outsourced to a 3rd-world country.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[ShinmaWa]

I'm afraid that the AC is right. Your interpretation is incorrect. If you look in your rather childish post, you'll see in the GPL that the terms on distribution says "you distribute" or "you redistribute". It does NOT say "you or anyone else distributes". A license can not bind you based on someone else's actions.

If the hypothetical company does not distribute their changes, then they are not bound to the distribution clauses of the GPL. Its that simple. If someone illegally (and yes, it would be illegal since the GPL does not nullify copyright) distributes the hypothethical company's code without permission or authority, the GPL does not force the company to release it retroactively. Since the company never released it themselves, they are under no obligation to adhere to the GPL's distribution clauses.

The same applies to the "internal" user. A company can not "distribute" software to itself. Distribution, under the terminology of the GPL, means distribution to the public, external to itself. An internal employee, when acting on behalf of the company, is PART of the company. Since the company didn't distribute the software under the terms of the GPL, its under no obligation to give the source code to anyone, including its own employees.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Suidae]

True, which is fine, thats part of the point of OSS, they can do with it what they please.

But if they start writing lots of software on it, at the least they will be producing developers with lots of linux/GNU software experiance, who might end up make changes that the community can use. At the very least they aren't giving money to microsoft.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Stephen Samuel]

My reading is that if I'm not distributing the program I'm not responsible to distribute the source. As such, if you obtain a copy of the program despite my wishes, then I have no responsibility to give you the source code.

On the other hand, the GPL restricts you from redistributing the program until and unless you can distribute the source code. As such, until you gain access to the source code, you don't have the right to distribute it.

Moral of the story: If you're going to steal someone else's GPL code, make sure you get the source.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Stephen Samuel]

My interpretation (IANAL) is that an organization can be considered a party, thus distributing within that party/organization isn't a violation since that party still has access to the source code -- but it's still distribution, and thus within the domain of the GPL. In any case, making multiple binary-only copies to run on a company's computers would probably be within the bounds of the GPL.

On the other hand, giving a copy to empoyees to use on their home computers would probably constitute a distribution to those employees and thus probably require making the source code available to them.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[ShinmaWa]

Interesting point! ...and one I completely agree with, humourous aspects and all :)

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[ShinmaWa]

My interpretation (IANAL) is that an organization can be considered a party, thus distributing within that party/organization isn't a violation since that party still has access to the source code -- but it's still distribution, and thus within the domain of the GPL

This I would disagree with. From the GPL FAQ:

Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. "All third parties" means absolutely everyone

If your supposition is correct, passing out modified GPL'ed programs within the company would be distribution and would in effect give "absolutely everyone" in the world license, something I don't think was intended.

The reason I believe this is that it sets up dual standard for companies and private individuals. If I'm a private individual, I can modify GPL software and keep it to myself without distribution. However, a company can not since the mere fact of giving it to ANY employee, under your definition, would constitute distribution. Since a company can't use or modify software without giving it to an employee first, we have a quandry. It also runs counter to another part of the FAQ:

[The GPL] does not require anyone in particular to redistribute the program. [...] What the GPL requires is that he must have the freedom to distribute a copy to you if he wishes to [emphasis theirs]

With your defintion, a company doesn't have this choice. The only way it "works" is if distribution within a company for company purposes does not constitute "distribution" under the terms of the GPL.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Rogerborg]

Ah, I see. You're an imbecile. First, you were flat wrong about the text being in the GPL, as you asserted. Have the good grace to admit that.

Second, please explain your bizarre belief that the FSF FAQ has any bearing at all on the GPL license. As you're not inclined to quote from the license, I'll do it. "The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow". The FSF's opinion on what the license means is just that: an opinion. The license is defined by itself, as I made perfectly clear. Why do you believe otherwise, and specifically, why do you believe that a court of law would?

Thirdly, where even in the FAQ does it say that "redistribution within an organization does not count as redistribution"? Where in the GPL or the FAQ does it say or mean "distribute" to the exclusion of "copy"? Where does it say that copying a binary internally to an organisation removes your obligation to make the source available to the individual recipient.

Yes, I know you're sure about what you think it means, but stick to the question. Where, in the GPL, does it say that?

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[Rogerborg]

Ah, well, fuck you too. Go ahead and ignore the word "copy", as in the salient phrase "You may copy and distribute the Program [...]", and go ahead and assert without support from the actual text of the license that "you" refers to a corporate entity rather than an individual, and that "third party" refers to anyone outside that entity rather than employees of it.

I'm perfectly aware of what you - and the FSF - like to think that the GPL means. I'm interested in what it says, because that's what the license is, not the preamble, not the FSF FAQ, the actual text.

If you're wondering why I'm getting so worked up about this, it's because the GPL has gaping holes in it a mile wide, just waiting for someone like SCO to attack it through, and those smug fucks in the FSF led by that arrogant prick Moglen have just been too damn arrogant and self assured to fix it for the past twelve years. Moglen has strongarmed people into following the spirit of the GPL so often that he's now apparently in denial about the flaws in the letter of it, and if there's one good thing that's going to come out of the SCO debacle, it's that a new version is long, long overdue.

Re:Damn Telstra to the lowest pits of hell.

[ShinmaWa]

Ah, well, fuck you too. Go ahead and ignore the word "copy", as in the salient phrase "You may copy and distribute the Program [...]", and go ahead and assert without support from the actual text of the license that "you" refers to a corporate entity rather than an individual, and that "third party" refers to anyone outside that entity rather than employees of it.

Enough with the language, already. Its childish and becoming a bore. You said you wanted to spawn a debate and you got one. We've all been very polite to you and you swear at us in return. If you can't play with a civilized tongue then don't play at all, little boy.

Having said that, I will respond to your comments anyway.

In the case of a corporate entity, I'm not making an unfounded assertion. It is long-standing law (with at least a century of precident) that corporations are legal entities. As some put it, a corporation is legally the same as any other person, except they don't vote and can't die. I believe that's overstating it quite a bit, but the spirit is there. Anyway, there is a mountain of case law that would say that a corporation (and its employees when acting on behalf of a corporation) are considered part of a single legal entity. Since a party can not be a third party unto itself (obviously), then a "third party" is not same person that is referred to as "you". Now of course, if an employee of a company is NOT acting on behalf of the corporation (that is, they are on their own time), then they can of course be a "third party". However, I was very careful to restrict my arguments to employees who were acting in the course of their duties to the company. During those times, they are part of the corporate entity and not a third party. This has nothing to do with the GPL specifically, that's basic corporate law.

I also did not ignore the part that referred to copying the program. I believe you are referring to Section 3, which deals with the action of "copy and distribute". This does not say "copy OR distribute". In this context, "copy and distribute" is a single action. It is intended to differentiate between distribution by copy (let me give you a copy of what I have) and distribution by transfer (let me give you my copy to keep). This is important since transfer touches whole different aspects of copyright law that the GPL truly doesn't want to involve itself in.

Having said all that, I still stand by the stance that because the hypothetical company didn't distribute, they are not bound by section 3 at all. End of story.

However, the more interesting section in this debate is section 2. Section 2 allows two different actions. The first action is "modification of a copy or copies". The second action is "copy and distribute", to which section 3 provides additional conditions on. Since this discussion on cares about modification, let's look at the conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

Okay... we'll assume they did that.

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

They didn't distribute nor publish. Doesn't apply.

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (yadda yadda yadda)

Okay.. we'll assume they did that too.

That's it. That's all they have to do to remain complaint.

I hope that clears things up. If you choose to respond to this, please keep a civil tongue.

Where will they get cheap Linux-savy people ?

[BillsPetMonkey]

Telstra will be hiring Linux-savvy people I think..."

Outsourcing companies rejoice! India rejoices. US, UK drink wine in the park!

Re:Where will they get cheap Linux-savy people ?

[sloanster]

Sorry monkey boy, linux-savvy people don't come cheap. MCSEs may come cheap, but not linux-savvy people.

Hope this clears things up -

Re:Where will they get cheap Linux-savy people ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe it or not, there was actually a time when MCSEs made more than UNIX Sysadmins. We'll see what happens to your salary after Susanne Summers starts hawking RHCE training on late night tv commercials.

While you are worry about that, train in your replacement, Apu.

Re:Where will they get cheap Linux-savy people ?

[Gorfman]

The difference may be in that Redhat have created an engineers certificate that takes more than verbatum regurgitation and multiple guessing to pass.

I would think that the Redhat people had what happened to the MCSE qualification in mind when they created the RHCE.

Re:Where will they get cheap Linux-savy people ?

[afidel]

I hold both and while the NT4 MCSE has a lot of regurgiation the win2k exam is nearly as real world as the RHCE. Basically after you have one of these certs and a couple years experience the certs themselves are only there as check boxes on HR's checklist or the mental checklist of defficient management.

Re:Where will they get cheap Linux-savy people ?

[gujo-odori]

*Good* MCSEs are still very well paid, at least if they're in the right shop. I'm a *nix admin and know enough Windows administration to get along, but I've worked with some really, really sharp Windows admins who made just as much as their *nix counterparts and were well worth it.

One of them even looked and acted like a stereotypical *nix admin: fat, ugly, rude, bad attitude, complete prick (like BOFH, except he was for real), hair in a ponytail, the works. He's a very good Windows sysadmin, though, and apparently pretty good at politics as well, since the fact that most of his users would probably like to see him dead doesn't seem to have harmed his career in the least.

All the *nix admins in that shop were cleancut, had short hair (one used to have a ponytail, but he chopped it), not fat, and were well-enough liked by all the users, and not as ugly as the above-mentioned Windows admin. For that matter, one of them is female and a whole lot less ugly than him :-) The Windows users especially liked us b/c we would try to help them out with stuff even though it wasn't really our problem at all. We were only responsible for infrastructure (Cisco) and the mail and web systems, which all ran on *nix.

So how much will be spent on OSS?

[God! Awful 2]

They plan to cut IT costs in half, but are still keeping some servers running NT and Solaris. Plus there is the cost of hardware, bandwidth, etc. So how much of the $750 million do they plan to spend on OSS?

-a

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[kgbspy]

Probably about as much as the average home user spends on OSS... ;)

To be quite honest, I'm surprised that more organisations haven't jumped on board the open source bandwagon; especially those who have a skilled IT department (Universities, Telcos, etc). I can understand small business owners wanting to toe the Microsoft line for the sake of being able to get advice from their buddies over red wine and dinner parties (or maybe it's the lack of OSS exposure?), but for those who know what they're doing and can afford to support it, there's savings to be had in open source.


Does anybody know how well Telstra pay? It could be time to dust off the ol' resume...

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[BrokenHalo]

I'm surprised that more organisations haven't jumped on board the open source bandwagon; especially those who have a skilled IT department (Universities, Telcos, etc)

Not sure about telcos, but lots of universities use OSS heavily, and even a number of banks (with the proud exception of PestWhack) here in Australia are linux-friendly or at least non-linux-hostile.

Seems to me that the biggest sticks in the corporate mud for insisting on Microsoft are the Federal and State governments. I'm sure it's not because of the advice they're getting from their IT mavens.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[kgbspy]

lots of universities use OSS heavily

In my line of work I've had a lot of contact with universities, and I must say I've barely seen a whisper of open source usage. Perhaps there are small departments here and there who are getting into it, but if so I'm yet to see it. Good on them if they are, however.

a number of banks (with the proud exception of PestWhack) here in Australia are linux-friendly

I'll put my hand up to being a Westpac customer, and I must say that I've never had any problems using their online banking, either on Linux or Windows (using both Opera and Mozilla Firebird on both operating systems). I have heard of people having lots of problems trying to do online banking on Linux, but I can't say I've ever heard Westpac's name mentioned in conjunction with that. FWIW, I think that Westpac's online banking is quite good compared to that of its competitors.

the biggest sticks in the corporate mud for insisting on Microsoft are the Federal and State governments

This is a landscape that is changing quite rapidly in Australia. The South Australian government is actively trying to pass a bill mandating that all government departments use open source software in preference to Microsoft, et al, where practical. A number of other state governments, including Queensland and (I think) Victoria are watching the case with interest, and if it is a successful program, will more than likely move down the same path. I'm sure it won't be long before this sort of publicity reaches critical mass and other government and corporate entities start to take notice and make the shift.

Having said that, it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if I learned that MS, or other software companies with vested interests in government/big business, started offering financial incentives for these organisations not to switch over to open source...

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Zachary Kessin]

I would guess that they will spend a bit on developing some apps (open office or gnome or kde maybe) that they need. But it will may not show up as a line item in the budget. Just have a few guys who would be developing stuff in house end up sending out some GPL code, under the radar more or less.

It is probably much easer for them to do that then to say put in the budget that they are spending X on linux application development. They now have a large vested intrest in making sure it works for them, and while they are at it, make it better for everyone else. Who cares how they budget it.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"To be quite honest, I'm surprised that more organisations haven't jumped on board the open source bandwagon..."

I'm not. With money as a motivator, the perception is there that the company will produce a product to satisfy you and keep working to improve it to make more money. With OSS... eh... you have to kind of hope that other people have used it to solve the same problem you have.

Before firing a flaming rebuttal at me, consider perceptions as opposed to the way things are or should be.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely, nothing.

The point with OSS for enterprises is to get free labour, nothing else. People making products for them without charging.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[1lus10n]

with IBM and Sun (and oracle, and bea, and veritas and ... you get the idea) behind linux that excuse is getting old quick.....

and actually you guys would be surprised the number of people/companies that run linux, the point is linux is silent, there wont be an outage caused by some worm/virus/maitnence like there is with microsoft, so you wont "hear" about someone running linux ......

(of course i am refering to server side software, desktop is another issue)

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Rockin' Az]

Two quick points

First - I am also a Westpac customer and I have not had any major problem with Westpac's on-line banking. When I first tried, Mozilla wouldn't render a number of links along the navigation sidebar down the left - that has now been fixed. I also find that a number of browsers (Safari at least) don't quite render the column widths correctly when viewing all your accounts. Slight inconveniences but still a workable system.

Second - the South Australian Government is not actively trying to pass a bill mandating that all government departments use open source software in preference to Microsoft, et al, where practical. Rather the Australian Democrats have put forward a Bill giving preference to OSS (i.e. use OSS unless OSS will not perform the task you want done properly). This is being driven by a South Australian parliamentarian (can't remember his name). At a federal level Australian Democrat's senator Brian Greig is pushing for something similar.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[BrokenHalo]

I've had a lot of contact with universities, and I must say I've barely seen a whisper of open source usage

Lecturers often (usually) use Macs, though I've come across several running Linux; but you might be surprised at the amount of server-side work that happens on Linux.

being a Westpac customer, and I must say that I've never had any problems using their online banking

I have no personal knowledge of Westpac, I was referring to this link which came up recently.

That aside, it looks like the South Australian govt may be more enlightened than our WA lot; but I have heard (unconfirmed) that MS has, indeed, stitched up Federal contracts.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe its stronger in the UK... both universities that I've studied/am studying at have had large scale deployements of linux to pretty much all computers used by researchers and students studying computer science related stuff... see here for example.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[hdparm]

offering financial incentives for these organisations not to switch over to open source...

Know what? Those incentives are more likely offered to individuals. In an organisation, 2 or 3 people (CEO, CFO, CIO) are making decisions - it's lot cheaper to pay them than the organisation. The effect is exactly the same.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Anonymous Coward]

``...a skilled IT department (Universities...''

I almost spat my drink over the screen when I read that one. In Australia at least, university IT departments have (in general, but especially in NSW) been divesting themselves of "skilled professionals" (there are still a few left, but they are far and few between compared to the heady days of the late '90s) and relying more on external consultants, "experts", contractors and work-for-peanuts Microsoft staff.

Sure, there are a select few Australian universities that pride themselves on in-house IT expertise (we're talking administrative, not academic remember), but most have long since ditched nearly all of their "knowledgeable" staff (ie., anyone who might say, "No" to an idea from management).

Sad but true.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[darkov]

Having said that, it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if I learned that MS, or other software companies with vested interests in government/big business, started offering financial incentives for these organisations not to switch over to open source...

And it's a good thing. I read today that the NSW government had signed up with MS for $400 mil or something. The good thing is that they screws them for a good deal with threats of going open source. Anything that stops MS from collecting their monopoly rents is a step in the right direction.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Anonymous Coward]

``In my line of work I've had a lot of contact with universities, and I must say I've barely seen a whisper of open source usage. Perhaps there are small departments here and there who are getting into it, but if so I'm yet to see it.''

You're not looking in the right places (or those universities just aren't telling you that they're using open source). Take a look at the number of Australian universities using Apache on their corporate Web server, plus one of Perl, PHP or Python. Next, look at the number of universities running Sendmail, Postfix or something similar on their mail servers (either primary gateway or as internal mail routers).

The list goes on...

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[gl4ss]

**In my line of work I've had a lot of contact with universities, and I must say I've barely seen a whisper of open source usage. Perhaps there are small departments here and there who are getting into it, but if so I'm yet to see it. Good on them if they are, however.
**

yeah that explains(not) how there's dozens of opensource projects(heck, berkley software distribution.) that originate to universities. in our university(and other finnish unis) most desktops still run windows, but underneath and in server usage linux is gaining high ground(from older *nixes), i don't think it's just coincidence there's a debian mirror in the university network either. the cluster projects you hear about are usually university related in some way or another too, though you might not bump into these departments by occasion, you don't see it if you go to the university and have a walk around, you might not notice much even if you are just a regular non-nerd student.

polytechnics&etc seem to be pretty stuck in microsoft land though(and some are really lacking in quality in it-department).

**Having said that, it wouldn't come as a surprise to me if I learned that MS, or other software companies with vested interests in government/big business, started offering financial incentives for these organisations not to switch over to open source...**

they're already doing this, offering big price cuts&etc.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean barely a whisper of Open Source usage? All CS departments use a flavour of Unix yes? And the Admins would be crazy to not install things like gcc, gdb, bison/flex, xemacs, groff, etc etc... we have Solaris at our University and here is a quick rundown of some of the stuff we have installed (off the top of my head):

gcc,gdb,gnat,etc (mentioned above)
pine/pico
emacs
sendmail
python
perl
libgtk
gimp
xforms (libforms)
LyX
LaTeX/TeX (teTeX)
Apache (obviously)
expect
gnuplot
gnat
libpng
mozill a
octave
openssh
openssl
tktcl
vim (obviously)
wxwindows
ncftp
lynx
imagemagick
ispell
mitscheme
cvs
bzip2/gzip etc
R

etc etc... our computers would be useless without OSS software.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah that explains(not) how there's dozens of opensource projects

Didn't it strike you that he's referring to his experience with _Australian_ universities?

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[NtG]

No, the point is a more managable and flexible IT environment. The cost is a bonus, but using open source software does not make a company 'cheap'.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Anonymous Coward]

They plan to cut IT costs in half, but are still keeping some servers running NT and Solaris. Plus there is the cost of hardware, bandwidth, etc. So how much of the $750 million do they plan to spend on OSS?

A sizeable chunk probably. I think you forgot the SCO licensing fees. At almost $700 a desktop they may end up paying MORE for "free" Linux than they did for Windows. That's ironic.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[kubrick]

This is being driven by a South Australian parliamentarian (can't remember his name).

I think it might be Ian Gilfillan; he might also be an ex-leader of the SA Democrats, but that's a pretty moveable feast given that they only ever have a few MPs per parliament.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[gl4ss]

**Didn't it strike you that he's referring to his experience with _Australian_ universities?**

didn't strike that it would make any difference, like said you can walk all day long on university campus and not see a trace of linux even though it's strongly there, or even if all the administration(not it) people you know there don't know jack of it.

Re:So how much will be spent on OSS?

[Stormie]

What's Linux-hostile about Westpac? I mean, they suck as a bank (I recently closed my account with them due to their outrageous fees), but when it came to internet banking (and I can't think of any other service a bank provides that can be "Linux-friendly" or "Linux-hostile") they have always had a perfectly sensible all HTML no plugins/Java/ActiveX/IE-only/etc. system which I was accessing from Linux with zero problems even as long ago as 1997..

Oh yeah

[d0sai]

This is quite a good news for open source developers. Telstra is a giant and they jumping into linux is somethin to take note of. Of course they will be hiring linux gurus to make this change

Peace
Dosai

Still in `trials'.

[Bridog]

"... [O]ur goal is to complete... at the end of October, draw our conclusions and rapidly roll it out."

Will we be surprised if, two months from now we hear: "Alas, all 500 test subjects hated it terribly; we'll stick with Windows. Oddly, they all seem to have inherited $1M from abroad.".

Re:Still in `trials'.

[Tyreth]

$1M? Compared to the $700M or so they think they could save from Linux?

Re:Still in `trials'.

[nice]

OSS dedications come from true followers.

Re:Still in `trials'.

[Maset]

Did you read the message?
Let me spell it out: The grunts appraising the system getting $1M each to say that Linux sucks.

Re:Still in `trials'.

[Bert64]

$700M saved by the company, and thus accounted for and reinvested into the business, of $1M directly into the back pockets of the people making the decisions? which do you think the self-serving businessman will choose?

Unexpected

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, unexpected good news. I was burnt badly by the Telstra 2 share offer and I was about to give up hope of Telstra returning to its clueful roots.

I still haven't forgiven them for download capping their ADSL...

Re:Unexpected

[Catharz]

"I was about to give up hope of Telstra returning to its clueful roots."

Err, what clueful roots? They've never had a clue and I doubt they'll inherit one within the next decade.

Re:Unexpected

[MikeHunt69]

Err, what clueful roots? They've never had a clue and I doubt they'll inherit one within the next decade. I guess you are too young to remember PMG. Incidently, I don't know why people get up-in-arms at Telstra. Ill let you in on a little secret: All telephone companies suck. I've lived the last 3 years in the UK and believe me, BT sucks just as hard as Telstra.

Re:Unexpected

[MikeHunt69]

do'h!

Thats what you get for hitting submit before Preview...

Telstra

[1arkhaine]

It is about time Telstra decided to do something right.

For the last couple of years they have been increasingly conservative, increasingly anti-competitive and increasingly stupid. They artificially inflate their Telstra Shop profits with their exorbitant call costs and line rentals (Really, charging $20/month to a rural person who makes 2 calls a month???). Not to mention how they ripped off millions of mum and pop investors with the whole T2 failure. However. Supporting Linux is a good thing, so ummm, I'm a little confused about how I am supposed to feel about Telstra now...

Re:Telstra

[1arkhaine]

Oh, of course, Telstra isn't entirely at fault. John Howard's infatuation with privatising Telstra certainly didn't help.

I am curious though. He seems desperate to ramp up Telstra's shares to do it all over again, and Telstra seems to want to help this by attempting to look like a growth stock...who knows what'll happen, but I think small time investors will be burnt (again).

Re:Telstra

[Anonymous Coward]

While I hate paying the line rentals as much as the next person; the very fact that the rural person made only 2 calls doesn't undo the fact that the line to their house must be maintained, the exchange maintained, and that they might have recieved over 100 calls in that month. All which are carried on the exact same line.....

Re:Telstra

[BrokenHalo]

I don't think, somehow, that we'll see Telstra pass their IT savings down to us consumers. After all, they're not doing this for our benefit...

Re:Telstra

[ishmaelflood]

The true cost of a landline is reputedly more than that. A more sensible billing arrangement given their real cost structure would be a higher landline rental, and then a flat fee per hour for accessing the network.

T2 was the gummint, although Telstra's projections must have been pretty rosy to support that valuation. Hmm, given the fairly hefty dividend payouts, and the franking rate, I suspect that even T2 investors might at least be close to breaking even, if you ignore the cost of capital.

Re:Telstra

[Taliesan999]

Firstly charging $20/month for line a rural line rental is nothing. The costs of maintaining that line mean Telstra likely doesnt make a cent. Rentals are a flat rate across the whole of Australia, regardless of how much geography alters the cost of service delivery.

Secondly Telstra itself had relatively little to do with the T2 failure. Chalk that up to an over inflated market and a government far too eager to sell off what it can while it can. If you bought T2 expecting to make as much money as folks did with T1, well, I have this little thing called the harbour bridge I'd like to sell you :).

As for them adopting Linux, yeah for them. They're cutting IT costs and Linux means a saving for them, probably both on support and price of the software, something Open Source folks have been saying for a while. It will be a good example to point to for business OSS use.

Re:Telstra

[NtG]

They ARE a corporation. They DO put their investors before customers. Let's be realistic here, telecommunications has always been an expensive service for consumers. All telcos are guilty of high rates. If any other competing telco could offer better rates, Telstra customers would have a choice in the matter, and they wouldn't be considered a monopoly.

And for all those 'but Telstra owns all the infrastructure' whiners, have you considered that maybe every other telco has decided that maintaining parallel infrastructure in Australia is way too expensive? It sure costs a lot of money to maintain bush/outback telco services, only to be paid the same $20 line rental that city-dwellers do.

Yes, we are subsidising bush telecommunications. So either stop whining about the size of your bill, or stop whining about the state of telecommunications in the bush.

Re:Telstra

[BrokenHalo]

So either stop whining about the size of your bill, or stop whining about the state of telecommunications in the bush

In what post did I do either? If you want to bang drums, do it on your own time. I merely stated that consumers' interests are unlikely to be a factor in this kind of decision.

Re:Telstra

[aussiedood]

Not to mention how they ripped off millions of mum and pop investors with the whole T2 failure.

No they didn't!! It was a case of greed and ignorance on the part of inexeperienced/first-time investors. I bought T1 shares but it was gonna be a cold day in hell before I bought T2 shares, people just didn't think/do their homework.

Re:Telstra

[NtG]

Fair enough. I agree with you. If I was an investor, I'd seriously be hoping this were the case. The share price is a little low...

Training, not hiring

[silne]

Telstra will be hiring Linux-savvy people I think..."

The article mentions training costs, so I doubt that they'll be hiring. Looks like they're going to attempt to re-train the current staff. Or at least those staff that aren't in India.

And so the flood begins...

[mcrbids]

It starts with a small scope. In some, small, area, Linux is "good enough".

Then, somebody asks: "What about..."? - and it works there, too.

And then somebody else asks: "Well, it worked here, what about..."? and it's good enough there, too.

This process continues until some major company decides to bet their farm on it - and it's good enough for that.

Suddenly, everybody sees it. Everybody recognizes the value. This is a turning point. One of many, but one of the big ones.

Linux is now widely recognized as "the future". As a Linux user, I routinely have conversations where Linux is "the future" and it's not questioned anymore.

With paying clients. And other vendors.

Linux is on its way. In 10 years, it'll be the default, like Windows is today still.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[BiggerIsBetter]

In 10 years, it'll be the default, like Windows is today still.

If Linux is the New Windows, it makes me wonder what will be the New Linux... maybe some project that is barely out of gestation today?

Re:And so the flood begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

In 10 years, people who aren't computer geeks still won't give a damn what operating system is running on their computer.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[child_of_mercy]

It'll be something that's open and free and plays well with others.

Maybe a HURD kernel? Maybe BSD? Maybe a Windows Kernel that leverages on others work instead of trying to destroy it.

This isn't about linux per se, its about software freedom.

Thats freedom for little guys and freedom for behemoths like Telstra.

If not for MS's licensing 6.0 this would have happened several years later, that decision dramatically reduced complacency and intertia in corporate IS departments.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

In 10 years, people who aren't computer geeks still won't give a damn what operating system is running on their computer.

Correct. And it'll be Linux.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Linux is the New Windows, it makes me wonder what will be the New Linux..

Isn't brown the new Linux? Or was that last year?

Re:And so the flood begins...

[advocate_one]

In 10 years, people who aren't computer geeks still won't give a damn what operating system is running on their computer.

Correct... It should work, as advertised, without needing a constant stream of service packs, critical updates, hotfixes or a permanent subscription to the antivirus vendor of your choice either...

Re:And so the flood begins...

[paulnuyu]

it makes me wonder what will be the New Linux

See, that's where you're wrong, and where the beauty of open source comes into light. There won't be a new "linux." Linux isn't anything more than a kernel running a huge massive conglomeration of open source software.

Even if a whole "new" kernel is written (not likely unless computers completely and utterly change their whole construction) the entire look and feel of the resulting system will be extremely similar due to the enormous dependance on GNU/GPL software. The whole UNIX platform has changed very little in the last fiftyish years, and nothing short of a complete architecture overhaul is going to change that.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[theTerribleRobbo]

What about VMS, then, eh? :-)

Re:And so the flood begins...

[child_of_mercy]

can you shoehorn that into a GNU framework?

plus it's proprietary and kinda closed.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

If Linux is the New Windows, it makes me wonder what will be the New Linux... maybe some project that is barely out of gestation today?

I bet something like PalmOS or Symbian.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[shird]

Yeah... except if it doesn't work. It is after all only in trials, and IMHO likely to fail cause it just isn't ready for the desktop. Then people would look at it and think "well it didn't work there. it won't work here. it will never work anywhere". then it dies.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[BiggerIsBetter]

A complete architecture change wouldn't surprise me at all. I expect the OS and apps to become more immersive, and computing to be way more distributed. I think the line between real and digital will blur even more, and there will be large changes to support that. It's going to be fun.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[Anonymous Coward]

Erm.. I'd say it's changed a helluva lot, seeing as it didn't even exist "fiftyish" years ago.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[zulux]

it makes me wonder what will be the New Linux... maybe some project that is barely out of gestation today?

My precious Amiga.... Did you hear that? There's hope for us.......

Re:And so the flood begins...

[Sri Lumpa]

"If Linux is the New Windows, it makes me wonder what will be the New Linux... maybe some project that is barely out of gestation today?"

That's right! Just wait until I have completed my totally revolutionary OS in 10 years time and you will see it spanking that punk Linux. It's going to be completed any time now... as soon as I stop reading Slashdot and actually write some code for it.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[GoofyBoy]

Replace "Linux" with "Apple" or "BSD" or any other OS and you sound like ever other advocate out there for the past 5 years.

So how is this "Interesting"?

Re:And so the flood begins...

[kip3f]

Yes, it's called EROS.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[johnnyb]

After Linux takes hold, it won't really matter anymore. You see, once people understand the concept of freedom-based software, they will understand that there's no reason to be bound to a particular vendor or technology. I mean really, I can imagine a Linux vendor switching out the kernel for something else, but who cares? It's not like anyone uses the kernel directly anyway.

We already have multiple operating systems - Gentoo, Slackware, RedHat, etc. "Linux" is not a unified entity anyway.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[BiggerIsBetter]

I spied that a while ago. You might be right.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[sean23007]

Maybe it'll be Windows after Gates dies and his screw-up grandson inherits the whole fortune.

Re:And so the flood begins...

[UserGoogol]

Sure they will, and do. It's just that the only thing normal people care about Operating Systems is what software they can use on it. (explorer.exe is included in that catagory, I guess.)

Good news, questionable company

[Lacertus]

It's really astonishing to consider: now is the time that the tide is rapidly turning in favor of Linux and Open/Libre Software. From large governments to ISP's, I can see an increasingly bright and prominent future for OSS. We should smile at the thought that years of dedication by talented and forethinking hackers is finally paying off.

I very much think that in 15 or 20 years it will be this current age we remember as being the watershed moment where the "technological civilization" is realized.

Sadly, from what I understand (not being an Aussie myself), Telstra is a horribly and unfairly run/administered corporation, that often reaks of anti-competitive behavior, viz:

"Australia's Broadband Woes" [http://ectnews.com].

duplicate or follow-up? you decide..

[Anonymous Coward]

previous story: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/08/21/015423 1&mode=thread&tid=163

before or after

[Anonymous Coward]

they have moved their call centers to India and subcontcated those chinese engineers at 2% of the wage of a californian ?

Re:before or after

[donscarletti]

telstra is half owned by the australian goverment, I doubt if the government would let them outsourse to India or China, or indeed California

Re:before or after

[Gavin Rogers]

Telstra is half owned by the australian goverment, I doubt if the government would let them outsourse to India or China, or indeed California.

Err, yes. Whilst they remain half-owned by the government they are influenced by government policy. (overseas outsourcing is bad, mm'kay?)

That's the reason why they're so desperate to be fully privatised. If it will increase profit to outsource all their front-line call centres to India or wherever, then as a fully independant, publicly listed company, they'll do it.

Improved Profit

[slasher_14]

No doubt there is also motivation by Ziggy Switkowski to keep improving their profit margins to make up for their low share value.

Telstra 1 Shares were offered around $3.60 (Australian), and peaked in late 1999 at $9.15 (Australian).

Telstra 2 Shares were offered at $7.40 (Australian) in late 1999, and are currently trading at just over $5.00 (Australian)

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.n sf /0/A315C020E468EDB5CA256BD1000FBBB6?OpenDocument

Share Info.

Re:Improved Profit

[slasher_14]

Bad link, sorry.

Share Info

Re:Improved Profit

[cheekyboy]

Still a hell better than MCI WORLDCOM, how much are they, 12cents?

at least T gives dividends.... with tax credits.

NOTE: i do not have T shares, or use them as long distance or work for them .....

Those T2 buyers should have not trusted honest John howard for a quick buck on the speculation of a share market.

To the Telstra haters

[Anony Moose Cow Turd]

Yeah, loving Telstra for moving to linux may still be hard cause quite frankly Telstra sucks. But you guys have gotta start doing what I have been doing for a year now. Become a telephone whore.

I've never stayed with one company for more than about 4 months before I switch to some new 'welcome back' plan another phone company is offering. The only way services will increase while prices drop is if there is considerable competition. Do your bit for Australian telecommunications and be a phone whore.

I must admit I am currently with Telstra but Optus has offered me a 'hard to refuse deal' to come back to them. I'm just waiting to see if my local Telstra affiliate Cooee will beat them both.

So change you phone companies like you change your undies ... once a quarter.

Re:To the Telstra haters

[BrokenHalo]

I presume you're on dialup then? Unless you're so well-off that you can afford to keep ditching broadband contracts at the drop of a hat?

Re:To the Telstra haters

[B747SP]

So change you phone companies like you change your undies ... once a quarter.

Why so often? Turn 'em inside out, and wear them for a second quarter. Think of the environment, think of the phosphates you're pumping into the ocean with that quarterly washing cycle! Sheesh!

Re:To the Telstra haters

[Anony Moose Cow Turd]

Yes, I am on dialup (free through the university). But nonetheless, there is no reason why my ISP has to be the same company as my telephone service provider.

Re:To the Telstra haters

[BrokenHalo]

there is no reason why my ISP has to be the same company as my telephone service provider

Indeed, this is true. My own ISP is aceonline.com.au, but they are effectively re-selling the Telstra package but with *much* better traffic allowances. Like it or not, Telstra mostly owns the infrastructure on which the Net runs here anyway.

And yes, for the US denizens of Slashdot, traffic limits are standard practice here in Australia.

Perhaps some of the IT savings..

[Arti]

Perhaps some of the IT savings can be ploughed into letting me download more than 3Gb per month.

Re:Perhaps some of the IT savings..

[iamthemoog]

3Gb a month? What's that - like 375MB? Guess you'll not be switching to linux any time soon, as it'll take you months to download it...

Re:Perhaps some of the IT savings..

[not_from_here]

or even better not counting uploads as part of my limit.

Re:Perhaps some of the IT savings..

[iantri]

I think he meant 3 gibibytes...

Re:Perhaps some of the IT savings..

[lakeland]

Amusing as your comment is, the limit on broadband in New Zealand really is 4Gb (500MB)/month. If you exceed that, you are charged 10c/MB. You can also buy a larger initial cap, for slightly less than 10c/MB. Ah, the wonders of broadband monopolies...

Cost Cutting

[ChibiTaryn]

Hmm... I heard a whisper about this earlier, and there were suspicions earlier when I read the Financial Review and was told that they need to halve their IT spending.

I don't know if Telstra are doing this because of the benefits that Open Source could provide, or cause they've been told to save money.

I just hope that they get it right for once. They seem to have enough trouble with their Microsoft products.... (the school's system in South Australia -- run by Telstra -- was down for three hours due to the Blaster worm on Monday, as was a number of Telstra dialup and e-mail....)

Re:Cost Cutting

[Anonymous Coward]

Telstra are only doing this to save money. Thats all. Nothing to see here, move along.

The federal government want to fully privatise telstra. They have already privatised 49%, the other 51% will happen sooner or later.

By switching to Open Source, telstra will be saving a shit load of money, which will make them *appear* more profitable, and also more attractive to potential overseas buyers/investors.

Telstras entire business strategy seems to be along these lines, its shocking, and they should be shot. Some of their policies border on criminal.

Re:Cost Cutting

[trmcdougle]

But saving money IS one of the benefits that open source provides.

IBM Global Services

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anonymously for job safety reasons.

Telstra is probably saving more by ditching IBM Global Services than switching to Linux. The businessI work for outsourced all desktop support to IBM Global Services to save money a while ago and employee productivity has dropped due to the poor care of the desktops. They still have not addressed the Blaster and Welchi worms after weeks -- they never patched the desktops. IGS doesn't judge success based on employees being productive but how many "tickets" they can clear. Clearing a ticket does not mean a problem is solved, it just means they were able to push a problem on someone else. Even IGS employees call their ticket system, "ManageNow", "MangleNow". Its freaking scary what they do to you!

If you here that IGS is taking over your support, quit your job! You life will be less frustrating.

Re:IBM Global Services

[Deternal]

Usually it depends on what your company decided to pay for.

At my former work Siemens got a contract to support the IT and everything was hell for 3 months, then it got a bit better but still didn't work right.

Anyway the point is - it all depends on the contract and what the company decided they wanted to pay for - the problem usually is that alot of the stuff that IS usually does isn't included in the contract.

I have worked with IBM and IGS on some occations and only have positive impressions from that - then again maybe I was just lucky.

Re:IBM Global Services

[NtG]

Telstra's parting with IBM GSA is probabely as much Telstra's decision as GSA's. I don't want to go into the history too much, but basically:

Telstra had a subsid. company named Advantra. Advantra was a SME outsourcer. IBM owned 1/3, Telstra owned 1/3.

IBM has a subsid SME outsourcer named IBM GSA. IBM owns 1/3, Telstra owns 1/3.

Both of these companies had a role in the support of Telstra desktops and resources. Things have changed. Advantra has since, after a name change, been integrated back into Telstra, after IBM dropping it's investment in the company. GSA has become a legacy problem for Telstra, who are looking to insource again. GSA is also looking to insource (as Telstra handles significant portions of GSA's services to customers).

It's just a cleaning up exercise.

Re:IBM Global Services

[z_gringo]

I worked for IBM Global Services, and quite enjoyed it. This was a few years back, but I found the hours fairly reasonable, there was quite a bit of on-call stuff, but it wasn't too bad.

I was installing and maintaining firewalls. My bigest complaint was the amount of work that served for nothing. (ie 2 days of working on a presentation, and no one shows up to see it), and those were usually to encourage us (IBM) to use our own products rather than purchase from the competition. We had OS/2, which at that time worked well for a few things, and obviously, AIX was free, and it rocked!.

There was quite a bit of beaurocratic nonsense, but as a whole, I enjoyed the experience..

IBM GS has a lot of potential, and they do the job a lot better than, say, EDS..

Re:IBM Global Services

[whatteaux]

"IBM has a subsid SME outsourcer named IBM GSA. IBM owns 1/3, Telstra owns 1/3."

Not quite. IBM owned about 50%, Telstra owned about 25%, and Lend Lease Owned about 25%.

Tellingly, both Lend Lease and Telstra have both taken (or will) their IT work back in-house. What does this say about IBM GSA when 2/3 of its owners won't even use it?

Having worked for IBM GSA (on the IBM account) for 7 years, I can see why. I wouldn't want to outsource to them either, and I bet IBM wishes it didn't have to. They suck.

Being a wholly-owned subsidiary of IBM, though, will benefit the poor suckers who work at IBM GSA because IBM looks after its people much better than the utterly clueless IBM GSA ever did.

To the Telstra haters-Phew!

[Anonymous Coward]

"So change you phone companies like you change your undies ... once a quarter."

Remind me not to sit next to you.

Re:To the Telstra haters-Phew!

[ishmaelflood]

I think the standard bribe is about 100 bucks for your mobile contract, same for ISP, same for phone.

That's not bad, since my bill runs at less than 100/month all up (no mobile).

Optus' bribe was effectively free local calls, and better capped rates for IDD. Not as attractive in the short term as the Telstra one, but I went with it after a few run-ins with Telstra's help desk.

Boo-urns

[Anonymous Coward]

(anonymous to stop karma whoring)

Who knows, maybe the money they save can be put towards letting people connect to their 'broadband' service, which they kindly cap at 3gb/month? Or maybe educating our communications minister?

While it's nice to hear that Telstra are switching to Linux, this hardly makes them a good company - they're still monopolistic and evil, as I'm sure any Australian who's tried to get decent broadband will tell you.

Re:Boo-urns

[ishmaelflood]

Broadband? They can't even manage a dial up account.

I tried for one month to get decent (better than 1kbytes/second) speed out of my modem, and was on the phone to the Testra Bigpond helpdesk for perhaps 5 hours all up.

I basically had two settings incorrect on my PC, they did not offer any useful advice on finding them, they were obsessed with getting me to reinstall windows, explorer, their cd and modem strings. Which I did, many times. Finally I found what was wrong, predictably enough it was none of the above.

So at the end of the first month I cancelled my account and switched all my telecom stuff to Optus, who have been fine. d/l speed is 5k, as you'd expect.

Re:Boo-urns

[KingRob]

So? What was wrong with your Telstra connection in the end? I gotta know!

Re:Boo-urns

[kaptink]

they have download limits for dial-up dont they?

Re:Boo-urns

[LordNyuknyuk]

Hear hear, Ishmael (May I call you Ishmael? D'arrrgh!)
Their conections are bloody useless. I was connecting using a Rockwell Conexant modem under RH8, and was getting approx 0.2k/sec up, nothing down. I thought the winmodem was a problem, until I used it under my win98 boot. Nyet. Same, and also my mothers computer on WinXP. Now, I think that most avenues have been explored (modem, OS, dialing location, phone line even) and its just Telstra's bloody hopelessness. You have pretty much just cleared up that its not my fault :) Ringing helpdesk to abuse^H^H^H^H^H ask what was up yielded the old "Linux isn't supported, sorry we won't answer any questions).

Out of interest, what settings were incorrect? Being bothered enough to switch ISP's is not high on my agenda of things to do lately.

Re:Boo-urns

[mvdw]

...any Australian who's tried to get decent broadband will tell you

For me, you can drop the word 'decent' from that sentence: I can't get broadband at all. I'm on crappy 33.6k dial-up: can't get cable (cable doesn't go past my house), can't get adsl (exchange isn't enabled), and can't afford either satellite or isdn. What's more, the wife doesn't want to move (at least, not for those reasons...), and I'm too cheap to buy a 56k modem for a small increase in speed, only for it to become obsolete when I can get broadband (hoping...).

Re:Boo-urns

[ishmaelflood]

Nothing. As I said, the PC had two mistakes in the comms/modem setup - I can't remeber what one was, the other was that about 4 menus deep there was a limit on max throughput speed.

My point was that after a total of 5 hours on the phone (and probably 10-15 hours all up) EVERY suggestion telstra made was completely irrelevant to the actual problem.

Re:Boo-urns

[ishmaelflood]

Well, one reason to choose a nom de plume like that is so people can make jokes.

Oddly enough there was nothing wrong with the connection, it was all my PC. My point was that their helpdesk script could never get them tot he point of identifying the real problem.

Now they'll be using Linux themselves do you think they'll support Linux at BigPond?

They are going with diversity

[bersl2]

This company's infrastructure is (going to be) made up of many different types of systems and platforms, each interoperating.

This is a win for everybody---well, except for HP-UX, which they're dropping.

The point is, each different type of system has filled an important niche. Linux for the thin client front-ends and the financial database, Solaris for the web server and for scalability, and Win?? for "the simple stuff." (Can you say "role reversal?")

Well, some of those specifics are off, as I need sleep. But I think I conveyed my general point here.

Duuuude... it's symbiosis... so beautiful, man...

Re:They are going with diversity

[d0sai]

why dump HP-UX - Well as far as i know HP provides very good support ?? or thats not the case. TVS in India still uses HP-UX and they cant seem to get out of it Peace Dosai

Re:They are going with diversity

[cfl]

I went for a job with Telstra last year - basically for rolling out what I think was going to be the Solaris based back-end for this. Sun One products.

I'm sort of glad I didn't get the job. I worked for a short time for a Telstra subsiduary. They had (and probably still have) a large (100+) number of UNIX and Linux based servers and some Solaris desktops.

They (the subsiduary) kept the IT support staff to a bare minimum and expected them to work hugely excessive hours. If Telstra are anything like this they may have problems keeping people to support their environment.

Re:They are going with diversity

[Bert64]

Because HP are dropping the tried and tested PA-RISC architecture in favor of the itanic, which is expensive, not fully compatible, untested, under performing, and seems already to have shown problems due to overly aggressive clocking.
Contrast this with Sun, who are continuing to develop the Sparc architecture, the new UltraSparc processors will provide full backwards compatibility with even the first generation of sparc processors, and the new versions of the Solaris OS also provides backwards compatibilty, even with SunOS 4.x, which was pre-solaris and in many ways a totally different system.

Re:They are going with diversity

[Gavin Rogers]

They (the subsiduary) kept the IT support staff to a bare minimum and expected them to work hugely excessive hours. If Telstra are anything like this they may have problems keeping people to support their environment.

Telstra are.

Telstra are trying to shed themselves of employees at every possible opportunity. (This isn't factless ranting, this is published - browse through australianit.com.au's archives) Telstra are desperate for their share price to raise so the government is able and willing to sell their part of the company.

The network is falling to pieces but Telstra are getting rid of tech staff as fast as they can.

I believe Telstra will in future be nothing more than a brand name controlled by high-level management that just control the contracting companies that do the actual work.

How good this is depends on your political leanings, I guess, but it scares the hell out of me.

Cost Cutting (again)

[ChibiTaryn]

Yep, I did some research, and found the article in the Financial Review. (mentioned in earlier post)

Telstra to Slash IT Bill in Half Interesting.

Reducing outsourcing

[Chuck Chunder]

According to the press release issued when they sold their share of IBM GSA to IBM it is part of "Telstra's vision which is to improve its internal IT skills base".

If they are stopping outsourcing stuff to IBM GSA they are certainly going to need extra people to cover it. (Of course, a lot of those people will probably be poached from IBM GSA...)

Re:Reducing outsourcing

[afidel]

Doubtfull unless labor contract law in Australia is vastly different from the majority of the US. Of course Austalia could be like California and most of Europe for all I know =)

Telstra and Linux

[oddbudman]

Yet another important step for linux.

Linux needs to rule the locked down computer stylings of the corporate desktop before it will have any chance of shaking up the home desktop market.

I remember the days when apples were easy and dos* was hard. The only reason my mum got a x86 was because that is what she used at work. These days Windows is easy and Linux is hard, but things are changing real quick.

Oppertunities like this are a great way for new users to be exposed to Linux. Lets just hope the exposure that telstra gives its employees is good one.

Never know, one of these days my mum may go out and buy one of these new 'linux' computers like the one that she uses at work.

Re:Telstra and Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because their using Linux doesn't cover the fact their shameless money grubbers

Their only using Linux to increase profits, not necesarrily because its any better

I'm glad their using Linux...but seriously, i still despise Telstra for their anti-competition and anti-consumer tactics

Re:Telstra and Linux

[Bert64]

Any large business is mostly concerned with profits rather than what`s better.. To them, something is better if it`s more profitable.. Altho, often the benefits to the business as a whole are second to the personal benefits to the decision makers.

Re:Telstra and Linux

[westlake]

Linux needs to rule the locked down computer...of the corporate desktop before it will have any chance of shaking up the home desktop market.
Oppertunities like this are a great way for new users to be exposed to Linux

I don't see how the singularly joyless routine of working with a tightly locked down corporate desktop translates into a win for Linux in the home. Do you think that Microsoft's "Where do you want to go today?" has no resonance with end-users?

Re:Shills...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of "Active Desktop"? That's where you find /. on Microsoft's desktops

Re:Tel$tra

[kaptink]

http://whirlpool.net.au/article.cfm/1183?show=repl ies

for those who are unfamiliar with good ol tel$tra ;) .. this would be the first good thing they have ever done!

He's right

[Hecatonchires]

SMH article about indian company that looks to get deal

Re:OT Linux question

[1u3hr]

Can anyone recommend any linux-specific websites for picking up cheap distro cds from?

Downloads from Linuxiso.org; also has pretty cheap "buy disk" links if you're on a modem. Also see Distrowatch.

Re:OT Linux question

[OzBeserk]

Sorry, my experience with linux only cover the New Testament....

If your brother takes your source code, give him your make system as well.

Harder in the US

[Bridog]

This is more complicated in the United States, I should think, because a good number of organizations will only be able to get machines that are preloaded with Windows. That means that small, non-profit organizations can only look at such a model and drool, because they'll never be able to talk the retailers into refunding their money.

You'll forgive my ignorance, but is the U.S. the only place where this problem exists?

Re:Harder in the US

[pe1chl]

The problem exists, but only for "a-brand" computers. That means it exists for oranizations, yes.
When you go to the shop nearby they will happily sell you their clone-of-today, usually offering a much more modern machine for the same price, and you get get it without Windows.

But sure, when you want to have something from HP, Dell, IBM etc it will be Microsoft-tax-included.

Of course this involves only the operating system, which is pretty useless by itself. When you need additional software like Office, it will be cheaper to discard the license, format the disk, and install Linux and OpenOffice.

Re:Harder in the US

[axxackall]

Forgive my ignorance too, but can't you buy PCs with preloaded Linux from already several national retailers like Walmart? And ain't there many online vendors of Linux-preloaded machines? Did you try at least to call your local Linux User Group to get the number of local Linux companies who will build (or find) the PC (WIHOUT prepaid Windows) and give you the rest of service related to Linux desktop support?

I think many companies in US can save a lot of money too if instead of drooling they will start to think. Here in Canada I know some food store networks and some local retail warehouses just switched to Linux (not only servers - desktops and terminals too) by signing the partnership with local Linux companies. Don't sit and drool - pick up the phone!

Re:Harder in the US

[Deternal]

I don't even think it's a problem in the US.

I can buy IBM, Dell and HP/Compaq desktops with Linux if I want - so I'm pretty sure you can in the US too.

Of course you don't need to buy brand PC's - which usually makes it even easier to not get a windows OEM license along.

Re:Harder in the US

[1lus10n]

Call Sun Microsystems.

Mad hatter which is a "thick" client that runs Linux/Star-office/Evolution/Gnome and should* be selling for roughly half the price of the equivelent microsoft product.

*= product not released until Oct 5th

Re:Harder in the US

[Mostly a lurker]

is the U.S. the only place where this problem exists?

The U.S. is a market where this problem has been reduced. One of the few areas where MS has actually complied with anti monopolistic rulings is that they no longer insist that OEMs install Windows on every single computer they sell. That is, they are complying in the U.S.: in countries such as Japan, it is business as usual ...

Re:Harder in the US

[hdparm]

Not quite true. My company buys from Dell and we get to chose OS (not necesarry Windows) or blank HDD if we want to. Granted, we buy hundreds of machines every 3 years, maybe that's why.

Re:Harder in the US

[sr180]

Cant you just not accept the Windows license agreement and then get your money back on Windows?

Re:Harder in the US

[pe1chl]

Ok, for us that is only possible on servers, not on workstations.

Hyprocrisy of most peoples comments

[Anonymous Coward]

Telstra charge MORE than all of their competitors for every service they provide.

Most people agree - Telstra is a rip-off.

Charging more for your services is not ANTI-competitive.

Wrong - plenty of people made money from Telstra

[Anonymous Coward]

No one was forced to buy Telstra shares.

I bought as many as I could, and sold them at well over 8 dollars.

Paid for a holiday around the world.

I am a small time investor, I would be first in line to buy more Telstra shares and get "burnt" as you put it.

Markets go up and down, chump.

300 Linux Desktops here

[geek2003]

Way to go - Telstra has about 20K desktops atleast! That makes me jealous now. And I was feeling proud that we have switched 300 Desktops( and about 10+ servers) to Linux at my place in the last 3 months.

tel$tra = $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

tel$tra has lost over 3 billion $au in bad hk investments. despite this, no management were shown the door, but the share price was punished severely. with 1000's of desktops, m$ licensing costs are increasing. linux & staroffice represent a way to reduce costs which means bigger profits. also several years ago, tel$tra partnered with ibm to create a ibm/gsa & forcefully moved hundreds of its it staff into that company. now it has dumped ibm/gsa & wants to move large parts of that outsourced contract to india. this is another move to increase profits. while its good that tel$tra may start using linux in a big way, its not out of altruism. also the last thing au needs is several hundred more unemployed it people, as ibm/gsa will surely dump most of its ex tel$tra staff.

Re:mod parent down, paste edited (politically)

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod this asshats post down asap, its not a verbatim copy, its been edited. (hint ESR comment is NOT in the original article).

Harder in the US-Dr Seuss.

[Anonymous Coward]

" This is more complicated in the United States, I should think, because a good number of organizations will only be able to get machines that are preloaded with Windows. That means that small, non-profit organizations can only look at such a model and drool, because they'll never be able to talk the retailers into refunding their money."

Nonsense. You can hop down to your local mom and pop shop, and for a small pop get a box with no Window locks, with change left over to buy the kiddies some socks. Now that rocks.

Don't believe a word those bastards tell you....

[B747SP]

Telstra is Australia's own little Microsoft. They cheat, they lie, they spam, they monopolise and they're openly and routinely anti-competitive.

There are only two reasons why Telstra would make a press release announcing their intention to use Linux:
(1) 'cos they've found a way to further screw their customers by their use of Linux, or
(2) 'cos they've found a way to further screw their competitors by their use of Linux.

That aside, if you go one step further, and read the article, you see that they're actually not using linux at all. They're beating around the bush with lines about XP and NT and Sun and HP-UX and Solaris and Linux and Citrix and XP-on-a-chip and you-name-it. The article is completely meaningless marketeer speak designed to trick some journo's into picking up on the key words "unix" and "linux", and it worked.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as happy as the next guy if a large corporate makes the switch to Linux, but that's not what this article is about. Never lose site of the fact that Telstra are evil. Every bit as evil as Microsoft or SCO.

Good for India!

[Cranx]

I see a whole lot of great IT jobs in India's future!

Re:Good for India!

[d0sai]

Well i hope this is true, Where else can they find cheap labour - Just the place for telstra
Peace
Dosai

Re:Good for India!

[Anonymous Coward]

I've done work with India and programmers from India for over a year and one half thus far.
I hope we never go far enough to actually put more of our labour there. I have been dissapointed by all of our off-shore work. Non of it has been to a standard that I would personally accept.
I will pay someone here for more money and I will have something that I can at least say is acceptable in some reguard.

IMHO

Har de Har

[Da_Phibster]

Geez, sign up for a broadband connection, pay through the teeth for a half decent speed and a fecked up 3gb cap (anything higher costs 3 testicles and a leg) and they don't support you running it off a *nix box at all. You ring up support and if you even MENTION anything about any *nix machine they say its your problem.. deal with it. Yet they want to save money by deploying the same stuff? *biatchslap telstra*

Re:Har de Har

[Anonymous Coward]

Telstra is going Linux but what about BigPond ?

If BigPond is does that mean their supported staff
will be able to talk to you if you do not use IE ?

Re:Don't believe a word those bastards tell you...

[krymsin01]

Thinking about, I can see why they are going this way. For some reason, no one hear seems to be picking up on the thin-client idea. The more you centralize computing, the easier it is to handle. Instead of installing OpenOffice on all the desktops, just do it once on you server, and all the thin clients connect to it to get their software. Open Source lets them do this easily, since they don't have to pay for someone to design something for. All they have to do is use the free software, and pay people to get it down. The way I look at it the largest price tag here is the rollout of the project. After that, they can cut costs dramaticly, fire a good portion of their IT that isn't mission critical anymore, or outsource it easier since it's so centralize remote administration would be a breeze.

Yeah, I can see how they might be using this to their advantage, or mabey I'm just trying to see the negative.

Re:Shills...

[Anonymous Coward]

I therefore submit that Microsoft shills are actively trolling Slashdot.

You've only just noticed this now?

Err... No they won't.

[Anonymous Coward]

God /. is pathetic breeding ground for Lunix Zealots.

The fact is Telstra are _NOT_ going to even bother touching Linux. The last time they said they were, MS (Ballamer) came running along and sold them a Windoze contract for cheap - which they accepted.

This is not a Linux deal, this simply is some PR generation so M$ will 'do whatever it takes' (Read: CHEAP) to get a contract.

Influx of good news

[ultrabot]

Just when the whole world seems to be going mad (SCO, RIAA, ...), and one day you look at news: yet another major Linux *desktop* win, the postponement of the EU patent vote, more news about the Asian Linux development project... it almost seems like things will be going up again! Horrors of the summer are behind us, and the autumn brings on a new light!

Incidentally, it seems that most of the bad news seem to be coming from US, while the rest of the world is moving forward. Now what was the old world/new world again...

Re:Influx of good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would you want balance?

The thinking seems to be that some new technology will safe your sorry asses, and quite frankly I couldn't care less, unfortunatly the other 5.7 billion people on this planet are stuck with you guys too....

Oh well, just remember: "None of us get's out of this alive."

Re:Influx of good news

[wigam]

Don't be fooled by this article. They'll be back on M$ once they get a tasty licensing agreement. Telstra is a leech on Australian IT. Sucking out all the goodness and leaving nothing but a itchy scab.

Re:Influx of good news

[Overly Critical Guy]

This isn't a major desktop win. Read some of the other posts about this company.

Bah

[canning]

Telstra To Put Linux On Desktop

It's been done, I've had one for years.

Re:Bah

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, well - I have too, at work, at Telstra.

A couple of years back we were told we'd be fired if we were caught using linux on the desktop at work (I wasn't caught). Funny how things change.

If you RTFA

[RevSmiley]

I you read the article you will see this is not a big deal. The purchase of WYSE terminals is dumb and wasteful since these very systems they are replacing will run just as well as thin clinets. They are keeping a pile of NT servers and are thinking of adding more W3K servers plus a hug number of existign MS desktops. Lots on fire and little heat. But it says "Linux" at least. They might save some money but will likeky not and then just will bag on Linux when the project fails.

Move along nothing to see here.

Mabey this is why they are switching.

[krymsin01]

According to this article at Cellular News.com:

Thousands of subscribers to the Australian cellular network, Telstra suffered crossed lines and access to the wrong voicemail servers following a major software failure on the network yesterday. The problems with the network started at 9am and were repaired at 5.15pm (local time) when the entire network was rebooted.

A spokesman, Michael Patterson, told the Sydney Morning Herald said Telstra still did not know what had caused the failure. "We're continuing to investigate," he said. There was no evidence to suggest the failure was related to the storm damage that caused havoc on its fixed-phone network on Sunday night, he said. "But we're not ruling it out."

Telstra has NOT dropped IBM

[dustpuppy]

Telstra has outsourced their IT to IBM GSA which is jointly owned in Australia by Telstra, IBM and Lend Lease.

IBM Australia recently bought out Telstra and Lend Lease and so no IBM GSA is totally owned by IBM.

The outsourcing contract remains until 2007.

They are using Sun "Mad hatter" Gnome!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope they can fix all 1039 bugs in the release. Gnome is VERY buggy at the moment, I hope they can help the gnome team fix a bug or two.

Excellent Now with the Money they save

[Charm]

They can increase ziggys pay packet.

Open Source J2EE?

[daBass]

"Telstra was building a two-tier web service infrastructure, with Microsoft's .NET and the open-source J2EE on SunOne, he said."

I never knew Sun was in the Open Source business with their J2EE server!

Or maybe they mean that in when Telstra writes their .net apps they will do that in the blind, not able to see their own code, local_echo=off?

Or they will release the source of any J2EE online billing application they write.

Or maybe the article's author is just using one too many buzz words...

Telstra

[MikeHunt69]

I used to work for Telstra about 2 years ago, doing performance testing. I was there for 3 years. It dosen't surprise me that they are dumping IGSA - there was talk about it when I was there. The guys did mainly Facilities management are really did suck.

As the article says, there are alot of Solaris and HP-UX systems already in place and the platform of choice when I was there was Unix. Of course, there will still be custom windows solutions for alot of their in-house products which will still need Windows, however since most of their stuff is done in-house, it wouldn't be a huge step in rewriting an app for a different platform.

Puts them in a good bargaining position with MS

[PhunkySchtuff]

Microsoft sales reps are constantly told "Never lose an account to Linux - not at any cost"
Telstra are one of Australia's largest Microsoft customers. They spend $AUD1.5Bn/year on IT (not all of this is on Microsoft)
They're now in a good position (having made this all public) to go to MS and say "We've got a problem. We give you too much money. Fix this problem and we can talk"
-kai

Re:Puts them in a good bargaining position with MS

[Tpenta]

Microsoft actually tried this late last year when the Staroffice deal was announced. They flew Steve Balmer out and he attempted to "lay on the charm". Of course if you saw the photos in the paper, you'realise that this is a physical impossibility.

Anyway, the Staroffice and J2EE deal went ahead and Micro$oft wasted the cost of Stev's time and trip.

Tp.

Re:Puts them in a good bargaining position with MS

[Anonymous Coward]

They flew Steve Balmer out and he attempted to "lay on the charm". Of course if you saw the photos in the paper, you'realise that this is a physical impossibility.

Or, indeed, if you saw the MonkeyDance footage. :)

Telstra are horrible.

[Gwala]

This isnt good news for Open Source, and Linux in particular. Telstra are a money grubbing company thats only looking at this because it will cost a lot less. That $1.5Mill will not go to open source, It will go to Telstra's Coffers, as Money saved being spent on windows. Most likely Telstra will try and [un]train their employees in Linux, rather than spend money. But then again, on the other hand it is an example of a Telecommunications company switching to linux for a large base of users, and might inspire other companies to consider doing it as well. (All though that being said, at the end of the day it's only going to come down to the cost, rather than a ingrained sense of compassion or nobility. [Like that exists anymore...])

Re:Telstra are horrible.

[Daniel Phillips]

This isnt good news for Open Source, and Linux in particular.

Nonsense. Every win for Linux/FOSS is good news. By dropping a convicted monopolist as a supplier, they clearly move in the direction of less evil, not more.

I want to know

[evil9000]

when will steve balmer come on holiday down here for a couple of days holiday, down in melbourne?

"i was just on my way through from switzerland ski trip..."

Re:I want to know

[Tpenta]

He's already tried it. When the Staroffice deal was announced late last year he was down in a flash. Copmletely failed at the hard sell too. The Staroffice and J2EE deal went ahead.

Tp.

I agree with you...

[Goonie]

Telstra is a particularly earnings-focussed company and its entire management team would hapily screw their own and their customers' grandmothers if it involved making more money.

That being said, we can be glad that they are switching to Linux, because a) it demonstrates that there are sound economic reasons to make the switch (because there's no way in hell Telstra would do it for any other reason), b) they will either employ Linux hackers or pay desktop Linux companies to customise the solution for them, c) a very big company has decided to break the Office file format monopoly, and d) maybe they will be more inclined to support Linux for their customers now that they are running it en masse.

Re:I agree with you...

[Rogerborg]

a) True, but read what the article says. They've trialed Linux desktops. They want to cut costs by half. If Microsoft called them up and offered them a 40% reduction in costs, I'd expect them to snap it up in a second.

b) If they switch.

c) Based on what? Why won't they just use Open/Star Office's .doc capabilities?

d) They're not running it en masse yet. RTFArticle.

A big story would be Telestra rolling out Linux desktops. Telestra saying that they're going to do it is a very different matter.

Re:I agree with you...

[Daniel Phillips]

A big story would be Telestra rolling out Linux desktops. Telestra saying that they're going to do it is a very different matter.

Oh, your theory is that managers never pay attention to the strategies of other companies?

Re:I agree with you...

[Rogerborg]

Sure they do. But the strategy so far isn't to switch to Linux, it's to do a small trial, then to proclaim loudly that they'll switch from Windows to save costs.

From here is can go two ways. They can switch, or Microsoft can cut them a deal. Managers are other companies will be watching with interest to see which one it will be.

Re:I agree with you...

[Daniel Phillips]

From here is can go two ways. They can switch, or Microsoft can cut them a deal. Managers are other companies will be watching with interest to see which one it will be.

Either way, it's starting to look like a run on Microsoft's bank.

Did anyone read the article?

[Anonymous Coward]

The article talks about using Windows based thin clients, not dumping Windows completely and switching to Linux.

Did anyone spend time to read the article?

Re:Don't believe a word those bastards tell you...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing that Telstra is publicising this are that:
1. This gives them leverage against Microsoft to screw down their EA license cost
2. They do have a need to approx 1% of their desktop to run vertical applications in Linux.

Telstra has so many SOEs that it's not funny. If they can find a model that they can manage this forest of SOEs they will do so.

Maybe this means

[ajs318]

Telstra dial-up and broadband users will be given a "starter pack" CD which installs a standardised Linux distro, with the only customisations being PPP support and modem drivers / ADSL stuff. It will make telephone support much easier if people are using proper software on their home PCs, instead of the gick that Microsoft push.

Most of the problems I have to diagnose by telephone for work involve users who are invariably running different software than I am, which is a royal PITB. I can't be expected to install every version of every piece of software ever released. At least with Linux, the cost of upgrading to the latest application version is negligible {even if your broadband isn't working, you can just pick up a new CD from a store} so it's safe to assume everyone is using it / force them to upgrade if not.

It's also a fair assumption that if someone is smart enough to set up their own Linux how they want, they will be able to make use of the configuration info from the CD. But that's what /usr/local is for ..... specify the install process to go somewhere under /usr/local on a pre-existing system, and it won't interfere with anything else.

Re:Maybe this means

[Anonymous Coward]

That would be a complete nightmare for home users.

People who are able to use Linux will already do so (and Linux drivers exist for most modems). Those who can't use it won't want it pushed in their face, and the last thing any carrier wants their helpdesk doing is helping newbies install Linux.

Re:Maybe this means

[ajs318]

That is typical Microsoft FUD. Mandrake &c. are widely reckoned to be easier to install than Windows. This is true in my experience. Debian and Slackware are harder, but they are more specialised. There are distributions based on both which have various features added to make them easier to use. Knoppix is based on Debian, and don't forget the Slackware LiveCD. Both are contenders for the "new tomsrtbt" title.

Looking at your choice of phraseology, your Microsoft bias is glaring. Why would people be less likely to want Linux "pushed in their face" than the pushing-in-the-face they already get with Windows?

I still contend that if you shew some complete newbie who had never ever used a computer before, one with a well-installed GNU/Linux system on it, they would have fewer problems with it than if it had been a typical out-of-the-box Windows installation.

Re:Maybe this means

[Sphere1952]

You get enough blue screens of death and email worms and you don't have to be a newbie to find fewer problems with Linux.

Telstra

[Anonymous Coward]

Telstra is renowned for having one (or two or three thousand) of everything. They probably have some old Honeywell and DEC VAX gear still running. They were writing COBOL apps in the late nineties and at the same time screen scraping mainframe COBOL apps onto MS Windows.

Reading the article you get the same impression - we got some SunRay, some Linux, some .NET - same as usual. It's nice they're picking up Linux but maybe they're angling for a better MS license deal ;-)

Not surprised

[TheOrquithVagrant]

Having worked at IGS some years ago, I can tell that at least where I was, we were _brutally_ understaffed and overworked in the second level support unit. People kept quitting, yet IGS kept taking new customers, without hiring any new techs to replace the ones that left.
Projects were also often taken into production in horrific and unfinished state, leaving the support teams the unenviable task to finish the project while simultaneously handling operations and customer fault reports.
The last month I worked there I had a crapload of overtime, and over 200 hours on call. On call didn't just mean having your phone on, it meant being at most 15 minutes away from my laptop and a phone jack so I could dial in and start working on the problem. It basically made me unable to leave my apartment.
I have a friend who still works there, and apparently things are much better now, but I can only say the last year I worked at IGS was the most soul-corroding experience of my working life.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

Ditto. I was a sysadmin for IBMGS for several years. They have too many managers and not enough worker bees. Mandatory overtime and hellish hours. In the 9 months since I've left, my stress level has gone way down, and I'm a much happier person.

Re:Not surprised

[Anonymous Coward]

On call didn't just mean having your phone on, it meant being at most 15 minutes away from my laptop and a phone jack so I could dial in and start working on the problem.

Huh? You've found a place where "on call" means something else?

Re:Not surprised

[TheOrquithVagrant]

Aaah... I hereby welcome to the IBM veterans' club ;)

Big Blue flashback! Big Blue flashback! AAAAAAAHHHH!

Re:Not surprised

[TheOrquithVagrant]

> Huh? You've found a place where "on call" means something else?

Yes. Where I work now, the guys in support have at least four hours after a call comes in before they have to be actively working on the problem. That gives plenty of time to go home from wherever you are, take a shower, grab your laptop, get to the office and start working. I, thank god, no longer work in support. No on-call whatsoever, and no overtime. Happy happy, joy joy. :)

Questionable ethics is a good sign

[Per Abrahamsen]

it means that free software can compete purely based on "value for money", which is far better news than if someone choose free software based on ideology.

"Create fewer IT jobs" is also good, if it means more efficient methods to produce the same goods and services with fewer people. It is called productivity increase, and free software has a great potential for that. Increasing productivity is the only thing that can make a society richer. It is sometimes resented by workers in fields that experience less demand, but that is a temporary effect until the job market has adjusted to the new situation.

One of the reason I release my software freely is that I hope it will be "exploited" as you call it. I just don't want to find myself in a situation where I have to compete with non-free versions of my own software, which is why I protect it with the GPL. As long as people keep their changes to themselves, that is find But if they share them, they have to share them freely.

Re:Questionable ethics is a good sign

[Tim Doran]

...and me without any mod points.

Well said, man. Someone please mod the parent up!

Wyse?

[jmerelo]

Any pointer? Wasn't that an old text-processing terminal company?
I have found this but I have no idea what this story refers to.

Re:Wyse?

[tweek]

Same concept really. Wyse used to make serial terminals but has kept themselves alive with thinclient workstations. Basically a citrix terminal running off a flash chip.

Check this:
http://www.wyse.co.uk/sc-computing/which-tc .html

Even if you stick to a windows-only shop, the cost of maintenance goes WAY down.

The New Linux? Nobody will care

[Per Abrahamsen]

Once Linux will the desktop, the search for alternatives will end. Since Linux is free software, people will continue to work on it, and kernel researchers will reimplement the application interface. Some versions of "linux" may in fact be a BSD, hurd or Solaris kernel that are bug compatible with Linux. But that will not be where the action is, what matter will be the applications that run on top of the kernel. The kernel interface will for practical purposes be "done".

The SA Government is not legislating for OSS

[sr180]

This is a landscape that is changing quite rapidly in Australia. The South Australian government is actively trying to pass a bill mandating that all government departments use open source software in preference to Microsoft, et al, where practical. I think you will find that the South Australian Government has already canned that idea. The premiers comment was that they will refuse to support any legislation either way but departments should be basing their software decisions on their own circumstances and merit.

Heh

[autopr0n]

Isn't Telstra one of the most hated companies in geekdom? I'm serious, I've never seen anyone say anything nice about it. If I were an aussy geek I'd probably be a little pissed :P

Actually govt monopolies rule

[DABANSHEE]

When it comes to utilities, where fixed costs make a huge proportion of the cost, govt monopolies are always the most efficient way to go.

Look at the mobile phone mess with 3+ carriers. Costs would be a lot less if one carrier had 100% of the market. Take even just driving down the highway, instead of all 3+ networks having cells along the route, only 1 network of cells would be needed, meaning a monopoly would cut mobile phone network costs in half.

But, but, but, what stops them charging whatever they want? Voters silly, if they charge too much polies lose office, that's the beauty of govt utility monopolies.

The stupidist thing the govt did was sell half of Telstra & bring Optus & Vodaphone in.

Another example is cable TV. Australia just doesn't have a decent market for 2 carriers. You see having the market split in 2 means carriers have to charge more to make up the differance, meaning pathetic uptake.

Now if Telstra was given a cable TV monopoly (infrastructure & billing, not content) economies of scale through having 100% of the market would mean they could charge a lot less (again fixed costs are king in this business) meaning a much higher uptake.

Just look at the Netherlands where the cable monopoly has 99% of all homes in the country plugged in. By being a govt monopoly made it piss easy. Basically everyone got hooked up, covered by the Dutch equilivent of the BBC license, & everyone then gets the free-to-air networks of the Netherlands & Belgium, plus about a half dozen German, French & British free-to-air channels, all for free. If one wants to subscribe to a pay channel one just does & the content goes down the pipe. This makes subscribing to pay TV real easy & has the added benefit of getting rid of more than 99% of TV antennas that were polutting the skyline.

Such a setup is much more efficient than Telstra & Optus building competing cable networks & losing money over fist to the point they had to merge to the point they're only pseudo-competing, & the billions that's been wasted by having 2 sets of ugly cables running along the streets of Sydney, Melbourne & Brisbane

So does this mean...

[bob670]

that a big spotlight with the outline of an obnoxious frat boy just started to shine on the Seattle skyline? "Steve, Steve, wake up, the FratSignal is shining, someone is trying to break our stranglehold on the desktop market. Get your briefcase and get down there ASAP!!"

try brousing the web from a Oz Uni library

[DABANSHEE]

Just go visit any tech, teachers college or Uni in Oz to brouse the web in the library.

You're more likely to find a old computer with Win3.11 & Netscape 2 than a Linux/Moz web station, & a 100 times more likely to come across a Win 95, NT, or 2K machine & IE.

Viewpoints on Telstra should not change.

[Jerk City Troll]

In this thread, many people have pointed out how evil Telstra is (I won't repeat). They are yet another greedy, monopolistic telco. Some people point out these things but then mention they don't know how to feel about the telco because now they are supporting open source.

Let's make one thing clear: the software an organization uses doesn't make them good or bad in a moral or ethical sense.

In otherwords, all you people who are wondering how you should feel about Telstra should just continue hating them. If Microsoft switched to 100% open source software, I would not forget all the shit they've pulled. I would still argue that everything that can be done to make them go away or pay for their crimes should be done. That goes for this telco too (assuming they are as bad as some people say).

We can certainly use the fact they've switched to open source to our advantage, citing it as a success story and so on. However, that does not mean all those affected should go off and pat them on the back. If they were a nasty telco running Windows, they'll be just as nasty of a telco running Linux--and with more money in their pocket to continue doing nasty things.

Think about it.

Easy vs hard

[SgtChaireBourne]

.., but things are changing real quick.

It's hard to beat pre-installed. As we watch the OEM monopoly fade, the changes will speed up.

Well for the user, KDE is easy to use, at least relative to Windows XP. I think OS X still has both beat.

For the admin, I'd have to say RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSe have won hands down ease of installation and configuration. Especially after watching the trouble the co-located department has installing and configuring Windows XP. Again, OS X has them all beat, at least on the desktop. Debian seems to be the easiest on the server.

You're quite right about using Linux at work. I used it for a few years at work and then realized it was better than what was on my home computers (Windows) so I upgraded to Linux at home, too. At least on my ix86 machines. I've used Debian and Yellowdog nicely on PPC and G4 machines. Unfortunately, for the six months OS X has turned me into one of those smug mac fans.

Well

[autopr0n]

The jobs will be going from Americans to Indians, rather then Australians to Indians, so it's no net loss for the AUers.

Re:Well

[Danious]

GSA = Global Services Australia

ALL the staff on the Telstra account are based in Australia.

Irony #1: At least 50% of GSA staff (and up to 80%) in the departments I've worked in are actually Indian/Asian Australians

Irony #2: IBM GSA is actually a joint venture between IBM, LendLease and... Telstra! It was originally founded to work on Telstras systems, before later expanding to take on other clients.

Re:Don't believe a word those bastards tell you...

[NtG]

It's also about innovation. Telstra is burdened with many very old software packages and processes, some going back to the days of the PMG (postmaster general's) department.

All of a sudden, they are faced with losing the majority government investor which has been a safety net for a long time. Don't get me wrong, a lot of Government departments run inefficiently. But most of those aren't facing privatisation.

What happens when Telstra is cast off, to truly compete with rivals to ensure decent returns to investors?

What better platform than Open Source environments to start fresh? It is just as easy for Telstra software developers (c'mon, Telstra has 50000+ employees, there are decent software developers in there) to develop on these platforms as it is on Windows, plus the TCO is much lower. And ample training is available these days to support OSS systems.

I can't think of a company in a better position, given their budget and situation, to deploy an OSS solution for the desktop.

So So

[Hecatonchires]

A big chunk of those IBM GSA people are living in Australia. Employed by an American behemoth, but spending their wages in Aus.

me too!

[twitter]

time for a better job!

Save us from the Evil Dollar-Bill Gates

[Loconut1389]

Yay, maybe if more companies switch to Unix variants after all this MS BS it will save the world! =)

On a more serious note, I do think a RedHat KDE Desktop can be just as user friendly as any windows box ever was and truly step in as a windows replacement with all of the applications available.

I think we're near the year where Linux is going to start seeing some steep desktop share percentage climbs, and hopefully with that number increasing, a decrease in NetNumbing virii/worms and an increase in stability/performance as well as disk space (less bloatware)

Save us from the Evil Dollar-Bill Gates, go Linux!

View from the inside...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a contractor to Telstra employed as Level 1 desktop support.

I think if Telstra roll out Linux/Citrix thin client environment to 85% of their desktops, they will need a massive training campaign to educate their workforce. (I am sure the difference to power users will be easily surmounted - let me continue)

When I ask 50% of Telstra employees to open windows explorer and go to the C drive, I receive a 10 second silence, and I then confirm they are in internet explorer. I ask them to go to help and about to check the version and they ask where the help menu is.

Non-IT Telstra staff have a standard bell curve of IT savvy, with the bulge about in the middle, being about the standard of my Mum who is a school administrator. I have made the suggestion to my team leader that Telstra really need a computer driving license module added to their internal e-learning intranet. There are plenty of basic computing skills that are non-existant in a large percentage of the workforce.

I cringe at the prospect of Telstra employees trying to migrate to a Linux desktop. Although I'm employed as L1, I reguarly do L2 and Lan admin work too. I have installed Linux on a few of my home PCs and played around with configuration stuff, but it's going to be a decent job to train me to the level of support I offer for Wintel. Apparently we have 2000 IT staff - that is a pretty big job.

All the desktop and file/mail/ras server and network support is done in house by Telstra employees or contractors. IBM GSA look after all of the host and web-based applications (there are 100s). I think Telstra aim to retire their fleet of netware fileservers and replace with win2K clusters as nw attached storage. Perhaps there is a linux NAS solution? I don't know about migrating all nt servers to 2k - this was touted in 2000 and T balked at the huge licensing fee. I think T have an exception to the retirement of MS support for NT.

I would be surprised if support of host/web applications would be migrated back to Telstra - I think Telstra is simply selling their share in IBM GSA but keeping the support contract.

As a level 1 contractor I get 21 bucks an hour. My electrician and other trade mates get 28 to 40 bucks an hour. It is a good, cosy job, but we miss out on some decent benefits given to permanents. It is definitely not a long term career move, but it looks good on my resume and I am regulary one of the top performers.

I understand negativity towards any large corporate with a monopoly, there are some valid concerns about performance of broadband and a monopoly et al (NB - I have nothing to win bigpond :P), but objectivity soon flies out the window with a subject people are passionate about.

Large companies take a long time to move, think of an aircraft carrier or an oil tanker ;)

VMWare?

[Overly Critical Guy]

Is this going to be like that other place where there was all that hooplah about their switching to Linux, and it turns out they planned to run Windows in VMWare anyway?

Re:VMWare?

[johnnyb]

VMWare is a migration step, and a good one at that. There's nothing wrong with running VMWare in that role. For the migration step at Telestra, they will be running applications off of NT Terminal Server or Citrix.

What you miss is, that with these options, they are saying that it is more cost-beneficial to go with Linux, even if you have to support a bare-bones NT install as well. That's saying a lot.

Re:VMWare?

[IANAAC]

I would have agreed with you if we were talking about VMWare 3.xx. VMWare 4.xx is extremely heavy on resources.
If all you are looking for is a good way to reliably run Office apps (including Access), Crossover Office would be a much better choice (my own experience, anyway).

Re:VMWare?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think that part of using Citrix/Term serv in such a migration exercise would be that you could segregate the whole environment, VMWare would just mean you still have all those local Windows machines, so license concerns would come up too.

Re:VMWare?

[johnnyb]

License concerns come up in both cases. VMWare is actually easier on the licenses, because you have already purchased the copies you have - no need to upgrade since it's a legacy operating system. For Terminal Server, you may have to repurchase licenses for remote use.

Re:I hope they publicy announce that KDE SUCKS!

[Anonymous Coward]

> And if you think this is flamebiat, you should try KDE 3.1, Gnome 2.4, when it comes out in a few days will wipe the floor with KDE!

And KDE 3.2, when it comes out in a few months, will be totally 31337 and 0wn gn0M3

I don't know about non-US companies...

[Anonymous Coward]

but many here in the US outsourcing or providing in house IT often spend extraordinary amounts of cash for things that they simply do not understand. No I am not actually talking about the technical details but what all that technical "stuff" really offers. An analogy would be a shipping company that for its in house auto-maintenance shops puts in multiple aircraft, racecar and boating repair personnel, equipment and software. I certainly hope that any company moving to do in house IT hires not the typical PHB and yesmen, but gets practical and intelligent decision makers and implementers. In other words, think in terms of a small business where you cannot afford to be stupid.

Bursting that bubble

[Overly Critical Guy]

First off, a line break after every one or two sentences just for dramatic effect is annoying!

Linux is now widely recognized as "the future".

Then your finger is far from the pulse of corporate America. Right now, the "future" is seen as .NET, .NET, .NET.

As a Linux user, I routinely have conversations where Linux is "the future" and it's not questioned anymore.

Notice the phrase, "as a Linux user." Of course your Linux buddies will be saying that. You visit Slashdot regularly. Here, people have been saying Linux will be ready for the desktop within six months. Of course, they've been saying that since 1999, but that's besides the point.

Linux is on its way. In 10 years, it'll be the default, like Windows is today still.

People have been saying it's "on its way" since 1999. See this USENET thread for why it won't be. Saying Linux will magically become the default in 10 years, just because, is silly. People want apps and usability, and they're willing to pay for that.

So

[Overly Critical Guy]

So, as it turns out, the only reason they switched to Linux is because they are greedy. They wanted something cheap. Nothing to do with magical OSS ideals. Disappointing, but not surprising.

Just Wait

[hoover10001]

Just wait until they tell you that they can't accept the e-mail that you sent because it's not in the right format. But at least their margins will be up.

But...

[NonAnonymousDumAss]

Complete lack of competition, especially in govt owned companies leads to total inefficiency. The company's real bosses (The politicians) don't give a monkey's about about issues as sevice's quality, technological obsolescence etc, as long as the bussines doesn't loose loads of money, wich can be guaranteed just making the service more expensive. The only will try to don't upset anyone asking for better sevices or lower prices (Making people work harder,or even do any work; reducing elephantic useless bureocracy etc). This only ccould make them Impopular without any benefit from them. So the service resents a lot,and therefore the costumers ( All the people,not existing competition).

mass failure of systems at Telstra

[p_de_goede]

It doesn't bode well that they just had a mass failure: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/9637.shtml I would be interested to hear if the migration/linux was part of the problem.

NOOO, its called TOLL$TRA

[cheekyboy]

Thats their real name..

before that it was called TELESCUM, aka TOL$TRA

Ziggy the CEO lives in a nice lavish house/mansion in TOORAK.

bastard, he has his own CELL PHONE TOWER/CELL in his yard coz its so LARGE to guarantee calls.

Baghdad Bob Sez

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno, man... Linux just isn't ready for the desktop yet. Having your choice of desktops may not be the best idea; people don't want to have to worry about choosing which interface or apps to use! Plus, there's the issue of installation. I mean, Windows comes on most computers; any effort beyond pushing the power button is probably unwarranted.

[desperately trying to stand so the camera doesn't catch the raging hordes of penguins taking over the world in the background]

Trade your soul ?

[Anonymous Coward]

This company is the devil.. Living in .au, trust me I know.

They screw the user for every cent. I was one. I still pay them for telco not for net.

3GB is enough for anyone!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Telestra dumping IGS?

[XunilOS]

Interesting, I can't seem to find any mention of IBM GS being "dumped" by Telestra on any of IBM's websites, internal or external. Has anyone found any other reliable sources to support this claim?

PMG

[Catharz]

PMG is a distant memory from my childhood. But we opened our PABX switch-box the other week to see if it's possible to switch people's lines for when they moved around the building.

We nearly died (from laughter) when we saw what was there. A bunch of skinny little telephone wires attached to a couple of rows of terminals on the RHS of the box, AND a book with PMG (Post Master General) on the cover with service records (the last one being 1972).

We understood why there was a notice saying that it should only be serviced by a NEC technician. Although, I don't know where they'd find one that still understands how this works.

thin clients

[Anonymous Coward]

" The price of PCs has gone down but the average cycle change is still three years."

That is the good thing about thin clients, you have 250 of them and you want to upgrade the equipment, all you have to replace a few servers, not 250 pc's. Ditto for upgrading software. And of course, linux is perfect for this because this is what unix was designed to do from the beginning.

Re:Don't believe a word those bastards tell you...

[solferino]

Agreed. Nicely put.