France Considers Open Source

joestar writes "Reuters today announced that the French Government is considering Open Source Software adoption as an excellent alternative to reduce their IT costs. A cost reduction of several hundred millions dollars is planned by replacing proprietary licenses by Open-Source solutions. 'Microsoft must return to being one supplier to the state among others', declared a government Minister. France's culture, agriculture and finance ministries had already signed deals with Mandrakesoft for first Linux deployment tests. After Munich's new move in Germany, it seems that Open Source Software is currently a major movement in old Europe."

Comments

I think France got it

[SeanTobin]

Well, they almost get it. Example:

Open-source software -- uncopyrighted software which has no license cost -- like Linux, OpenOffice, Mozilla, Apache, MySQL and Evolution -- was "very credible," Dutreil said.

Well, there is a license cost, and it most definately is copywrighted. But monitarialy they are correct. Now, the very cool thing they said was:

"This will also help us sell our solutions to other governments," he said, adding that he believed the German, Israeli and Malasian governments also envisaged shifting to open-source software.

BINGO! We have a winner! Evil country A develops software for a fraction of the cost it would normally take in the closed-source land, sells it to Good Countries B through T and V through Z, and makes more money than they would have been able to otherwise.

Now that is what the GPL is about. Saving money&time in development, making money in sales & support (of course I probably wouldn't want France supporting my KMissle Launch Control System), and giving back to the world an improvement on what they borrowed.

Re:I think France got it

[pavon]

The licence cost part is correct depending on how you look at it. When most people talk about software licences they are thinking of EULAs, which are supposed "licences to use". So what they are saying is that you don't need to pay someone to get a licence to use the software. Which is absolutely true - there is no cost, monitarily or in source, to use open source software.

Of couse we all know that you don't need a license to use software, just to redistrubute it, so those EULAs aren't really licences at all. They are just notices that say you have no licence to distribute, as well as an attempt to get you to agree to a bunch of things that probably aren't legaling binding anyway, since EULAs are not valid contracts.

Open source licences on the other hand are real distribution licences. But the only cost is when you want to redistribute derivitives works, in which case, the cost is the source to those derivative works. In the standard user's perception of "software license" there is no cost.

Just splitting hairs :)

MS should make the customer the designer

[aim2future]

What MS need to assure is that MicroSoft finally will become a company that provides what the customers want. Today MS is among that line of companies pushing the customer to buy and not asking the customer what the customer want (I've heard from insiders how this works). A policy which will never work in the long run.
In the free software development the customer is also the designer, for the skilled ones, but why could not the customer also be the designer for the less skilled ones?
The reason that the free software development has been so successful is that the providers are also the customers and can continue develop the products. I'm not sure that MS has understood this simple fact yet.
MicroSoft should adopt to this idea, and in the long run they can become a very successful supplier of wanted software, designed by the customer for the customer.
/AIM

Reuters: You Fail It!

[JohnGrahamCumming]

From the article:

Open-source software -- uncopyrighted software which has no license cost

Wrong! Free and Open Source Software absolutely relies on a strong notion of copyright because of the need to protect (in this case preserve the freedom to modify) the software itself. Without copyright you have no way to actually license the software to someone else, and hence impose your specific licensing requirements (e.g. GPL).

That's partly why the term "copyleft" is so dangerous and should be stamped out. It's absolutely vital that people realize that F/OSS is copyrighted and under the control of an individual, or group or a corporation. The strength of F/OSS comes from the underlying copyright and the fact that it enables us to control the code.

John.

Not just use - develop with open tools

[xtal]

Microsoft development tools can cost some big money, and it costs money to stay on top of things. Countries that invest once in open source tools can use those open tools to develop their own in house software - for example, Le KMissile Destructo Fumer 5000. All of this can run on open platforms, some the KMissile system can have more resources put into the APPLICATION and USE of the tools, instead of getting new hammers and nails all the time.

Open source gives free tools to everybody. World class, kick ass tools. Do you know how much something as good as FFTW would cost to buy? More than my car! This lets you focus on using those tools to create value in the market - sucks to be in the tool making business, but overall it represents a boon. This is why so many people in the industry have problems; the value is not IN the IT, but what the IT enables you to DO.

Isn't it obvious?

[Three Headed Man]

All these countries are considering open source not so much because they may use it, but because they know they'll get some leverage against Microsoft. As soon as Linux was offered in Thailand, Windows cut prices on XP and office to $35. The best way to drive someone's price down is make them think they have to compete against a serious threat.

Doesn't make sense.

[Rhys]

Why are all these governments endorsing and planning to use OSS on one hand, and then passing retarded laws that could cause serious problems for OSS on the other? Hello Mr. Foot this is Mr. Hand and his gun to shoot you.

Translation issue

[loolgeek]

SeanTobin wrote:
-----------------
"This will also help us sell our solutions to other governments," he said, adding that he believed the German, Israeli and Malasian governments also envisaged shifting to open-source software.

BINGO! We have a winner! Evil country A develops software for a fraction of the cost it would normally take in the closed-source land, sells it to Good Countries B through T and V through Z, and makes more money than they would have been able to otherwise.
--------------------

I think it is bad translation. "To sell" ("vendre" in french) could also mean "to convience" or "to promote", it does not mean necessary that money is involved.

EU VS US Trade War

[CHaN_316]

I'm thinking the decision to move to OSS by France could be a geopolitical strategic move as well. A trade war between the US and the EU is almost certain to come, and it'd be in Europe's best interest to NOT be locked into software vendors from America. We are already seeing signs of the trade war, be it farm subsidies, technology standards (CDMA VS G3) (Galileo VS GPS), and genetically modified foods. In addition, we all know that the American-French relationship has seen better days.

Just because Chirac complimented Bush about American hamburgers (3rd paragraph) at the G8 summit doesn't mean all is well between the two.

Re:Ya know what Microsoft?

[shis-ka-bob]

The fact is Microsoft software requires more maintenance. At least on servers, The Robert Francis group found that Linux requires far less admin time. This is discussed at zdnet . For a 'server unit' (defined in the report), the admin costs for Linux was $12,010 annually. The cost to administer Windows was $52,060 annually.

Microsoft likes to say "Linux is free like a puppy". I say, yes and Microsoft is like the purebred (add the 'b' word here if you wish) that costs a lot upfront and has congenital defects from generations of inbreeding. Sure, she is pretty, but shie is high strung you will spend way too mutch time and money fighting infections. Give me a mutt anyday; the mutt is not only cheap to aquirer, but more robust and better tempered. Saving money up front is only the start of your savings, the real savings is found in the maintenance costs.

Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons

[ultrabot]

However, when you do a cost-benefits analyis of open-source software as a whole, you have to take into account user training and support costs.

Don't forget the cost of lock in - it can't be measured on short timerange, but having competition on the market is going to buy you, and the rest of the industry, a lot.

Going for Linux is a no-brainer at least for us europeans. It frees us from an oppressive US monopolist, creates local jobs and generally opens up new business opportunities because, well, Linux doesn't yet have all the software Windows has.

It's time to be a little bit patriotic, people! Asshats that can't learn the few Linux apps they need with a little bit of tutoring could just be fired (now there's a motivation that gets people moving), you should have the best minds working for you in the first place...

Re:France Would Save More Costs

[CHaN_316]

I'm not sure how healthy the French economy is these days. France (and Germany) have been exceeding the EU's limit of deficit spending which is 3% of GDP. France is at risk of getting sanctions from the EU. In addition, it doesn't look like Europe's education system is fairing too well either, and it's generally agreed that education is required for a healthy economy. This Time article talks about overcrowded classrooms, underfunding, etc, etc.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:not asking the customer what the customer want

[idiot900]

Open source by and large does not listen to actual end users.

This is obvious in the
low quality documentation, if any,

The major OSS projects have third-party published books out.

configuration process,

Which is why a business would use a distribution instead of rolling their own.

usability

The big-name OSS projects meant for the end-user (i.e. KDE/GNOME/Mozilla-spawn) are very usable - they are just a bit different than the closed source competitors. I'd venture to guess somebody who hasn't seen any desktop before would learn an OSS desktop just as easily as a Windows one. Switching over to OSS couldn't be any worse than switching from Windows 3.1 to 95.

ongoing support

Businesses would buy a support contract.

Business users are not going to continuously fight the 'geek needed to install and operate' mentality of open source software.

Ditto with the support contract. (And since when has running a non-OSS shop been a walk in the park? You need competent IT staff, period.)