Slashdot Mirror
South Korea Jumps To Open Source Software
mormop writes "Following on from the news that a far-eastern Linux distro is on the way, silicon.com is carrying news that South Korea is switching $300,000,000 worth of PCs to Open Source Software.
The only question now is will Steve Ballmer be capable of covering the sort of distance needed to pull back all these switching governments before collapsing with exhaustion, or is he en route for the Air Miles record?"
MS will just buy an airline to keep from paying those high travel costs for Balmer. It's the sensible thing to do!
.NET and Passport, so if someone were to check their hotmail they might accidentally trigger the CRASH_INTO_MOUNTAIN subroutine.
But I wouldn't wanna fly on it... they'll probably innovate the control systems with
I am a filthy pirate.
Open SARS software?
Finally, a large government has adopted this kind of standard. Hopefully more countries and more companies will join the bandwagon after seeing such a large example of free software implementation!
You didn't even bother to fill in the name of the country into the blanks of your standard-form.
we have all seen him dance......the dude has pretty good stamina. personally, i imagine he will be dancing himself silly to the heads of each government only to find that its hard to convince people your OS is better when you dance like my grandmother after a bottle and a half of wine....
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
The amount of savings is not the same as the worth of the PCs.
"Last month, Japan, China and South Korea met in the Cambodian capital of Phnom Penh to sign an agreement to jointly research and develop non-Windows, open source OS."
Wouldn't it be great if state governments (yes, I'm fixated on state governments because I work for one but also because it is the public's money that is being spent) here in the US would do the same thing? I've seen individual states start various research projects but no larger effort that leverages all the resources in all states.
Tangent: my graduate thesis is going to be on why governments should have an open source technology preferential mandate given the cost-savings and total ownership provided by doing so. Call me crazy but I really believe that government should always choose the least expensive option whenever possibe. Currently, you ask for funding for a project and once you get it the rule is use it or lose it, thus, more money is spent than is really necessary for most projects in order to keep the funding for future years.
- tokengeekgrrl
One thing that companies outside the US (Germany, China, South Korea, South American nations, etc) is that employing Microsoft is really only good for Microsoft.
But by switching to Open Source for the government, there are several benefits that "trickle down":
1. Programmers within the specified nations are now employed, which keeps money inside the country.
2. The advances that come from Open Source software can be then used in businesses inside the country, which reduces there expenses, and if more development/administration is needed, they can look inside their own country rather than going elsewhere.
3. Exportability. If you have a country with top engineers in Open Source, and another country happens to need those, you are now in a better position to export those services.
I'm not quite with the "governments should make laws forcing Open Source down people's throats", but I am in support of measures that will give them control over their own software destiny.
Granted - as long as they play by the rules of the GPL, BSD, and other licenses.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
I am in a position of managing development and procuring hardware and software. I have used Open-Source Software (OSS) instead of Commericial Off-the-Shelf (COTS) applications recently; I have moved some of my development overseas to India recently.
In hindsight, what I notice, is that I did both for the same reasons. While the COTS applications have lots of advantages (support, professional services, a vendor to yell at), OSS' price was right, and it was good enough. There are a lot of problems with off-shore development (time, politics, control), but, its good-enough, and the price is right.
I know of COTS software companies whose chief competitors are OSS solutions. As a customer, I have picked OSS over COTS. The companies have had layoffs. Imagine if lots of people decided to work on auto assembly lines in the spare time; what would that do to the gainful employment for auto workers?
I'm not advocating anything, I just think that it is important to remember that jobs are lost due to OSS as well as foreign outsourcing. On /., we focus on losses due to outsourcing, but ignore the OSS losses (because this community, including me, tends to be pro-OSS and anti-offshore). In some cases, those losses are the same, when
OSS work is done in foreign countries. If you want to be
protectionist by making it harder to off-shore work, shouldn't
you also be trying to limit OSS?
On the other side, if you want openness, shouldn't we have openness in labor markets as well as software?
Just food for thought...
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
S Korea may just be using this as a threat to get MS to negotiate on price and/or features. Until recently, govts (and large companies) haven't really had much of a credible alternative to Windows, so they haven't been able to use their incredible scale as purchasing and negotiating power. I wouldn't be surprised to see MS and S Korea come to a deal in six months time...
... will take the lead in this do you think? Hyundai, Samsung or LG?
S.Korea had a similar plan during the 70s when they subsidized the big three to each develop and market their own version of Unix in the hope that they would be able to undercut the Americans.
or camels nose under the tent, whatever way you want to explain it, this is very cool. Something I just realized, if enough governments or corporate arenas move to open source software, inertia will help us bring down Microsoft because they will have to create there software to interoperate. If they don't, their current customers will not be able to communicate as effectively with our open source bretheren. The tables will have turned. The tables are turning. Thats very cool.
http://www.haxwell.org
I would think that this would mean that we will be seeing more games coming out for Linux (at least from Blizzard).
But I would suspect that with Korea, China, and shortly Japan moving to Linux, that the game companies will start producing native Linux version.
Loki was just ahead of their time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yesterday, North Korea has switched all their 7 PCs to RedHat Linux. That makes them second MS-free economy in the world (first was, of course, The Principality of Sealand. Film at 11
Makes it seem like all the pundits who called the browser wars OVER were a bit premature in their declaration. With non-U.S. governments going whole hog to non-proprietary products, Mozilla, Konqueror, and other open source products will finally see their share rise at the expense of IE (what else is there to rob from?). When the U.S. becomes a small subset of web users, IE's market share will be less like a monopoly and more like a realistic competitor.
How the hell is anyone supposed to understand that? Where is your puctuation? Without punctuation its just looks like a mess of jumbled up letters.
One thing I have to give Microsoft credit for is their foreign-language support and Asian IME's. I had to set up a Linux box for a friend with both Traditional and Simplified Chinese support, and it was nasty to try and figure out. The final result was not quite as simple and easy-to-use as what you'd find in OS X or Windows.
In the light of this, the decision of Eastern governments like China and Korea to go with open-source software is all the more significant. To me, it indicates that they are more than willing to deal with software that may not be as good to gain the benefits of OSS.
I've just been to two websites in the last five minutes (www.iams.com and www.thefermentedgrape.com) that did not cooperate with Mozilla. Iams' had a text version; the other is a wine brewing store just down the street, so I'll be able to talk to them directly (gak! RealWorld!). Perhaps -- I'm the overly optimistic sort sometimes -- a country with 48 million people switching to Mozilla (yes, government != joe user) will make the odd web developer realize that not fucking everybody uses IE.
(ObDisclaimers: I realize that two web sites are not a huge deal. Most of the time I'm happy to write off the site in question and move on. The instructions did specifically state that I shouldn't taunt Happy Fun Ball.)
Carousel is a lie!
...distros build colloboratively by the IT departments from various state governments.
I realize it would most likely have to occur on departmental levels, for example, I work for the courts and develop case management systems so I would work with the IT departments of other courts in other states.
The current system in place for some of my appellate courts are based on a system that was developed by a vendor for a different state but since it's proprietary to the vendor, we can't enhance it so we have to re-write it so that we own the code and can make changes as needed. Imagine if we could create a baseline application for all the courts in the state and leverage all the programmers in those IT departments to work on it? Ok, so maybe it's just my fantasy.
- tokengeekgrrl
Would you rather pay a bunch of money for an encumbered proprietary tool or get an approximately equivalent unencumbered tool for close to free? I don't see how MS can defend itself in this battle.
...that I am currently re-writing proprietary applications bought from vendors, (one client-server app based on Oracle powerbuilder and another 32-bit windows-based). Once my team is done, we will own the code but the technology underneath (I'm thinking of Oracle specifically and other middleware applications) will still be owned by someone else. Once say Oracle decides to no longer support whichever of their products we are using, we have to upgrade and re-program it again if necessary, etc...
Basically, I think the cost-effectiveness will be recognizeable in the longterm because of the total ownership over the technology and investment made into resources so I understand your point in regards to open source by itself not necessarily being cost-effective. I have worked in the state government for 5+ years which, while not an extraordinarily long period of time, has revealed to me the expensive process that is endured with throwing money into "current" technology only to have it fade away within a few years and require replacing.
But you are quite right in that open source does not guarantee anything but it does offer great potential.
- tokengeekgrrl
Since there is only so much money to go around to fund IT infrastructure/application development, an integral part of my dept's mandate is to be cost-effective in order to be fair to all users across the state (which is a significant group since I'm in CA).
;)
In light of that clarification, I don't think your comparison to US mail or paved roads or education or my deciding which candy bar to buy (twixt is my current favorite) is really applicable.
- tokengeekgrrl
Who said it had to be OSS? Locking yourself into ANY one vendor is nuts. I can remember back when business owners couldn't be bothered to learn how to use a computer themselves and would rather have an assistant do all that "techno stuff" for them. I now know quite a few of them that are out of jobs and cannot get a job because they are suddenly lack experience in crucial areas. The world of technology is a lot bigger than just one company no matter how big that company is. Tying yourself to any one company is just a bad business mistake. Keeping your options open is the smarter move. As for OSS, I seriously doubt it is going to just disappear if one person stops using it. That is contrary to the way the system works. Not to mention all of the big companies that are supporting it. To me, I would rather use software that is supported by MULTIPLE very large companies rather than roll the dice with one company who continues to get themselves in more and more trouble. But hey, its all just opinion. Enjoy your comfy box, I don't think I would feel as comfortable trusting MS.
seSales, Point of Sale software for OS X.
the next 10 years will be very interesting.
I do not see how microsoft will survive..
I mean they are and arent like IBM, see, IBM had much more going for it than an operating system.
they had PC's, servers, and all kinds of hardware, they flopped in the PC and OS category, and microsoft and independent PC makers kicked them aside, IBM has thrived on helping opensource, manufacturing computer hardware, etc. they have a survival plan. now they back free software, because hey, it's just software, you gotta have a machine to run the software.
microsoft is mainly software and stock shares, they do make computers, but they're just as shoddy as the software they make, when microsoft falls, they're going to fall VERY hard. IBM fell, but they had plenty of padding to help them surive, I suggest to Mr. Gates that he better start saving up his money and start looking for a place to retire, because his time is coming up.
but then again, let's not too cocky, because you never know what will happen, thus why I say the next 10 years will be interesting.
I bet in the end, all the other countries, except the US will have freedom to choose what software they want to use, while the us has to use microsoft as their operating system, the way special interest has a stranglehold on the government.
it's gonna be a wild ride.
After all, why should the asians buy from MS anyway. They are already using cheap asian labor to make the software then sell it back at inflated american prices. Why not just skip the MS middleman and "pay" their own people..and save a buck or two. When American companies pay cheap labor in asia it's "outsorucing", when Asian companies pay cheap asian labor in asia it's "unfair" competition...see.
I think you're right on about Globalism though. American companies aren't making JOBS for americans, they're just using it as an excuse to get free work. OSS changes the focus [back] from buying a canned "product" to buying experience and know-how. Corporations like MS have spent years trying to "bottle" knowladge from others and sell it real cheap. OSS lets YOU use knowladge to improve your situation. MS is really in the same racket as the RIAA or MPAA. While they are really popular, they don't make anything people can't live without. That OSS is even an issue shows how quickly software became "Corpratist". After all, we don't have debates about independant music or film, yet independant [free] software is somehow inferior or wrong? It's a great brainwashing job!
I just love the business atmosphere here in the U.S. where everyone without high-paid lawyers gets to lick the shit off the Big Players' shoes, or get bullied out of business.
Seriously, why is it that here in America people aren't more inclined to switch to lower cost solutions? I mean, if you think about it, with the money that companies and government spend on software, they could collaborate and develop their own software and never have to pay out the ass for software again.
Everywhere else in the world, companies and government are realizing this.
I just don't get it.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
The arguments that OSS causes a loss in job suffers from the same flaw as /. arguments that technology causes a loss of jobs and outsourcing causes a loss in jobs: looking at a particular piece of the economy rather than looking at the economy in the aggregate.
Innovative endeavor is never a bad thing. OSS and motorized street sweepers both cost jobs for someone. But society as a whole is able to be more productive, and more jobs are created. Similarly free trade leads companies to move jobs abroad, but it also makes American businesses possible that would previously have been unprofitable and makes consumer good more attainable. Imagine how expensive products would be and how difficult it would be to run a computer store or a car dealership or a toy factory if all the parts were 4-20x as expensive.
OSS, technology, and free trade really suck for some people. Real people lose real jobs. This is particularly hard on people losing low skill jobs, which are the most likely to be lost due to technology or globalization
The answer isn't stopping innovation (I consider outsourcing a market/resource management innovation). The answer is making sure that there are systems in place that help the people who lose out due to innovation to get the skills to take advantage of the new jobs that are created by innovation.
Around 2 million copies. Very impressive... http://www.frictionlessinsight.com/Articles/BeingB lizzard/BeingBlizzardEntertainment.htm
Your point would seem to make sense, except Microsoft is just as likely to decide that a product does not make them enough money, and discontinue it. When they do that, you have no recourse. If you were using OSS then you can hire your own guy to maintain or improve it. If your using open formats, then you could just switch programs an not think twice about it.
Examples: ListBot IE for Mac Windows 98/NT
So, having said that, doesn't it make sense that the government should mandate open formats so that they're protected from the OSS coder losing his broadband and MS locking them in? If MS Office really does the job the best, then they should not be afraid to use an open documented format. This goes for any product.
Anyway - North Korea is already member of the "Axle of Evil", so why not extend this to South Korea?
Not using Microsoft Software should be enough proof that they are terrorists/mass destructors/atomic bombers/anarchists/communists.......
I'd like to agree that JoeLinux appears to be a total loser. Geopolitics, indeed. What do you think this is, Kuro5hin?
/. can such giant monkey cock at times.
And what is this crap he says about no trustings at ACs? Comments like his are why
I read on an onboard magazine in Icelandair a couple of years ago that many big corporations were purchasing aircrafts and putting pilots in their payrolls because it was cheaper than paying for all the flights some of their executives had to do. Not only that, baring certain high-traffic routes, it's also faster to travel with your own airplane than depend on pre-defined routes and connections.
---- Take the Space Quiz!