Slashdot Mirror
GNU/Linux Clears Gov't Procurement Hurdles
Sam Hiser writes "Tom Adelstein makes some sound if subtle points about where GNU/Linux really is in the government space -- not far enough. With OpenOffice.org and Mozilla (Firefox) now popular harbingers of file format freedom and browser security on Windows, he says, there is hope that public mindshare is catching up with reality; and that the 'Microsoft Two-Step: Shrug & Reboot' will soon be a thing of the past.
Adelstein, in his column today in Linux Journal, discusses the significant advances made by GNU/Linux and its achievement of Common Criteria certification for government and enterprise use in a world where Microsoft still dominates in mindshare and governmental purchase orders."
And the version change and new features only makes it more so.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
... but what about GNU/Linux's use in the military? For example, a member of the Los Angelas LUG resigned over the use of Linux in the military.
Do we really want the government using open source? We really dont want to limit it, because that would be a limit on the freedom, but do we want it being used for evil? Perplexing!
I havent had an unintentional reboot since I started using Win XP. This is zealotry at its best. I personally wish that people would quit with the "Windows must die for Linux to succeed" crap. I like them both and they both have their purposes. I dont care how great Linux gets, I WILL NOT QUIT USING WINDOWS, tney are tools to be used sometimes in conjunction together sometimes by themselves. Windows will never die, Believe it oir not there are a lot of people that like Windows. The two major Operating Systems I see for the future are going to be Linux and Windows. Windows is here to stay, get used to it.
A lot of funding is going to the DOD for defense so people in those organizations have a lot of money to work with. I have a summer internship at a base and they bought me a $4400 setup for Pro/E work. Saving a little money isn't a high priority. Also, pro/e needs windows.
I think linux will become popular with foreign governments before it becomes popular in the US. Like I've always thought, linux can be harder to setup, but it works better once you have it set up. IT departments probably wouldn't like it because it takes their job away by not having to wipe windows' ass every 15 minutes and requires them to learn something new.
When have you had to restart in Linux? I can probably count on my hand the number of times I've had to restart due to it being necessary.... one... during install... "Now its time to boot into your new Debian system".
Windows? "Thanks for installing ProgramX, please reboot your computer to use it"
If you're restarting a lot in Linux, you're doing something VERY wrong.
You run a bussness, you plan estimates in YEARS ahead.
That depends... Many large businesses are run by people who are in there for a few years only... They want the biggest profit this financial year, then they collect your multi-million-dollar bonus, then they leave...
why aren't everyone switching now?
Like the article says: mindshare! People think "Windows" when they think "Computer"... "Explorer" when they mean "Internet"... Et cetera...
Let's think about who might consider switching, and how they think about it:
So who's going to switch?
Remember superior never implied popular - just ask Sony BetaMax users.
we don't have stories about
I don't know? maybe nobody does it... They switch to linux, love it and never leave...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
Actually I've been using Linux off and on for 5+ years, and it's always been to incredibly frustrating to switch completely. I keep hearing about these alleged superiorities to Windows, and they never pan out. In fact, in my experience, it's been the polar opposite. I shrug and reboot when the whole thing kernel panics, not just when one single program stops responding.
Yours is much more polite than others, but why do people insist on attacking me any time I post about my real experiences with Linux? Disclaimer, I'm not a complete newb, I've used many distros, I didn't sabotage any config files, I didn't use cheap hardware, I use things with OPEN SOURCE DRIVERS FROM THE VENDOR AND THEY STILL DON'T USUALLY WORK.
Perhaps the Linux community would do a better job of shutting people like me up by fixing the REAL issues instead of making wild assumptions and blaming me for clicking 'install' and then shortly after having issues. Did I click install wrong? Am I suppose to be flipping off my XP CD while I click it? Do I have to chant "Windows sucks" while I install Linux?
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
most people who have transition problems from Windows to Linux don't stay long enough to have been considered to use Linux at all.
Most to-Linux switches are hundreds of desktops at a time, and are not entered into lightly, and are not backed away from once started.
That accounts for the difference you mention.
I hate to be the one to have to break it to you... But if a bad guy has physical access to your box to boot it from a live CD, it doesn't matter if you have Windows, Linux, Solaris, AIX, FreeDOS or KonTiki on the darned hard disk.
-- I could tell right away that she was impressed with my HUGE Slashdot Karma.
I think you are a flat out liar. Post your panic dumps.
I know dozens of people using Linux over the last five years on different machine types and kernel panics have never happened to any of them, on any mainstream distro. I'm not saying panics don't happen but your claims aren't even remotely reasonable.
It's very strange. I have had very rarerly kernel panics, sometimes when I haven't properly set up my /etc/fstab for my numerous servers or workstations I support, NEVER had a kernel panic due of hardware misfunction or damage (thanks god!), I never had problems with drivers provided by vendor, etc. etc.
In opposite, I have to plug off box from INTERNET while installing Windows XP and install updates OFF-LINE, otherwise it will be full of viruses in matter of minutes.
Yes, there ARE lot of thing to improve, BUT please, install is NOT what most people will do anyway - they just their box to work.
Linux has improved very much last few years and if you don't see it, well, maybe then Linux is simply not for you.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Another common fallacy by an obvious Linux user.
You totally misunderstood my remark. I did not say that people use windows because they are conditioned to do so - (however there may be something to that as well, since the average Joe six-pack who goes to kmart to buy a computer would never be told that he has any choice but to use ms windows - but I digress) - but rather that the microsoft customer's conditioned "reboot" response is a time honored method for solving windows problems. You may not realize this, but I have daily contact with friends, relatives and co-workers who use ms windows, and I get plenty of information from them, as well as my own light use of windows from time to time.
As to your question about why linux has not taken over the desktop from windows, there are a number of basic and immediately obvious reasons, which make me suspect you are a troll, Mr "I love linux"... You seem to forget that microsoft had years of monopoly power on the desktop, years of vendors writing programs for microsoft windows only, and careers that have been (naively) built on the assumption that windows everywhere would be the reality. Just because linux is better, doesn't immediately erase all those formidable obstacles. It will take time, and in the meanwhile, microsoft will use every dirty trick in the book to avoid the emergence of a viable, competitive market. Expect an increase in the already shrill cacaphony of microsoft shills, anti-linux FUD in the press, anti-linux lawsuits, bought and paid for legislators and politicians, and bogus "studies".
Ultimately, however, even against this frantic opposition from a hideously wealthy company dedicated to killing it, linux is slowly and surely making inroads.
" If you're talking about *real* competitors . . . . "
Whether you like it or not Linux is mostly competing against Microsoft in the current market place. Microsoft is a *real* competitor. If you disagree, thats your opinion, however the 90% of computer owners that are using Windows I'm sure would agree that it easily competes with Linux.
It's a good thing for all the same reasons it's good for open-source when your neighbourhood pedophile, rapist or mass murdered uses your favorite free operating system. Bug reports and the potential they'll contribute something back in code and/or money.
And if you have some asshats "governing" you that are starting wars, passing stupid laws and taxing in even stupider ways, it's time you turfed them out of power. Imposing Windows on every bureaucrat is cruel and unusual punishment, and I think there's something about that in a couple international laws.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
If gumnt were here to serve the general public, then open source would gain faster acceptance in US gumnt than it has been getting..
Unfortunately, to a large extent the reality is that gumnt is here to serve the companies that bribe ^H^H^H^H^H lobby our Congresscritters.
The question isn't why not, it is why? For businesses, this is a critical question. What do I have to gain? What will it cost to make the switch?
.asp and used Active Directory for user authentication...so replacing it would be a ton of work as it would not work in a Linux-only environment.
Just think about it. You have a large staff, business critical applications, computer hardware...all of these are factors in the decision. For example where I am at, many applications ( such as webtrends ) do not run on Linux, some only run on proprietary version of Unix ( such as HP-UX ), precious few would survive the transition over to Linux, That means gutting millions of dollars work of software ( some apps are $5000+ per license! ). As the poster above mentioned, even if your hardware and software would survive the switch, what about training the various level of support staff to install/configure/operate/support the new OS? How would you replace something your corporation depended upon, such as Active Directory. Btw, all your business Intranet web sites were written in
Anyway, I am just scratching the surface, there can be many more issues than the ones I mentioned, but hopefully I have shown that a switch to a new OS is not a "no brainer", no matter what the savings in licensing costs.
I can't afford a sig!
... and here's why. Simple economics. It costs huge sums to pay all those MS folk to keep developing Windows.
IBM has figured out that the OS is a commodity... and a proprietary OS is a just a tool to lock in application producers/providers... so they are actively driving the value out of the OS market.
Microsoft will NOT be able to survive as the dominant OS if it has to pay hundreds and hundreds of developers to do what Linux developers do more or less for free.
Even Apple, which has cut costs by using BSD at the core, still has huge built in costs. But they are smart... they are using their OS budget to develop a competitive advantage at the interface level.
As Linux becomes the numerically dominant OS worldwide it will draw a growing number of application writers.... snowball effect... just as "everyone" writes for Windows now, there will come a day when people can't afford not to write for Linux and Windows... and not too long after that, a day when people will look at the shrinking Windows market share and say, as they do of Apple now... hey maybe will get around to writing for that someday...
MS can't... simply can't.... compete on cost at the basic OS level. They will therefore compete politicaly, legally, and every other way.
Now... you like Windows because it runs your apps? Hey, I like it for the same reason. I run XP and SuSE.
SuSE is definitely more of a pain in the butt... no Dreamweaver.... no Photoshop CS... although I could go back to Photoshop 7 with codeweaver.... I'm still trying to figure out how to install programs from source.... it's a pain in the butt every time. But look at IBMs strategy and you will see why Window's share will be about the size of Apples's market share in 10 years.
None of the programs I run in SuSE ever give me trouble... but I don't run Dreamweaver which is the main thing that is always locking up in XP. Neither ever locks up fully... although I have had XP grow unstable and funky, leading me to reboot... and of course I reboot for some installs. No big... I'm so square I turn off my computer every night. But all in all XP is still easier to use... and DOOMED.
Linux and open source sucks the profit out of the OS. MS will NOT be able to afford to compete with the cost of linux development. They are selling something that used to require a paid army, and now needs only an unpaid army to develop and improve.
As a result Windows will die.... unless they simply purchase the governments and court systems of the world outright, or with the help of their corporate partners, and outlaw free software and, not to get too overheated about it, freedom of thought and communication itself.
These arguments get old after a while.
Reasons why linux isn't ready for the desktop:
Installing Software:
In Windows: Double click exe file
In Linux: Unpack source code, run configure, run make, run make install and pray that you have the right versions of various libs. Yeah, debian may have apt and redhat may have rpm, but the setup files that run on windows are universal, and install to ANY version of windows.
Changing settings for software:
Windows: Open convienent settings dialog, press apply or simply press ok to close the dialog when done, changes are applied.
Linux: Edit cryptic config files, restart app
Installing Drivers:
Windows: Double click the setup file, worse case scenario, open device manager and do things that way or right click on the inf file and hit install.
Linux: compile the driver, possibly recompile the linux kernel due to a missing dependency. use insmod to install the driver. Edit several config files to get the driver to load. Even IF you get this far driver may not work because the kernel is 0.00.000001th of a revision off.
You can argue it's the software developer's fault, but forcing a user to compile EVERYTHING they use is a waste of time and no user will ever use an operating environment that promotes such primitive behavior.
Flame me all you want, i'm one of over a billion windows users, i also use linux, it has it's places (Servers) but it's NOT ready for the desktop, no matter what you may say/think.
The day you can install and run apps with the click of an icon on ANY distro, the day you can edit ALL aspects of your system via a nice GUI, will be the day that linux stands a chance.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You sure don't play with Nvidia or VIA. Some hardwares are known to give famous low level lockups on Linux.
Commercial hardware designers try to hide broken implementations due to short timelines and money, with strong IP restrictions on oopen source interoperability and by obscure software ticks.
Commercial software manufacturers try to hide broken implementations due to short timelines and money, with strong IP restrictions on interoperability and obscure hardware DRM tricks.
Maybbe it is time for Open and Free Hardware or GNU Hardware to get in line with Open and Free software.
Léa Gris