Slashdot Mirror
UK Government Reports Linux is 'Viable'
CProgrammer98 writes "The Beeb is reporting that The UK Office of Government Commerce has published their final results following trials on the use of OSS and especially Linux and they conclude that Linux is a viable option for government use. From their summary: 'The report shows that Open Source software is rapidly maturing, offers significant potential benefits to government and should be actively considered alongside proprietary alternatives. It concludes that decisions should be based on a holistic assessment of future needs, taking into account total cost of ownership, with proper consideration of both proprietary and open source solutions.'"
From: "Steve Ballmer"
To: Anonymous Coward
Subject: Customer Focus: Comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:44:29 -0700
In the thousands of meetings that Microsoft employees have with
customers around the world every day, many of the same questions consistently
surface: Does an open source platform really provide a long-term cost
advantage compared with Windows? Which platform offers the most secure
computing environment? Given the growing concern among customers about
intellectual property indemnification, what's the best way to minimize
risk? In moving from an expensive UNIX platform, what's the best
alternative in terms of migration?
Customers want factual information to help them make the best decisions
about these issues. About a year ago, a senior Microsoft team led by
General Manager Martin Taylor was created to figure out how we could do a
better job helping customers evaluate our products against alternatives
such as Linux/open source and proprietary UNIX. This team has worked
with a number of top analyst firms that have generated independent,
third-party reports on cost of acquisition, total cost of ownership,
security and indemnification. Some of the studies were commissioned by
Microsoft, while others were initiated and funded by the analysts. In each
case, the research methodology, findings and conclusions were the sole
domain of the analyst firms. This was essential: we wanted truly
independent, factual information.
At the same time, our worldwide sales organization is going even deeper
with customers to understand their needs and create a feedback loop
with our product development teams that enables us to deliver integrated
solutions that support real-world customer scenarios, and
comprehensively address issues such as manageability, ease of use and reliability.
I'm writing to you and other business decision makers and IT
professionals today to share some of the data around these key issues - and to
provide examples of customers who opted to go with the Windows platform
rather than Linux or UNIX, and how that's playing out for them in the
real world. Much more information on this is at
www.microsoft.com/getthefacts.
This email is one in an occasional series of emails from Microsoft
executives about technology and public-policy issues important to computer
users, our industry, and anyone who cares about the future of high
technology. If you would like to receive these emails in the future, please
go to
http://register.microsoft.com/subscription/subscri beMe.asp?lcid=1033&id=155
to subscribe.
TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITION COSTS
In the past few years, you haven't been able to open a computing
magazine or visit a technology Web site without running into an article about
Linux and open source. Not surprising: who doesn't like the idea of a
"free" operating system that just about anyone can tinker with?
But as the Yankee Group commented in an independent, non-sponsored
global study of 1,000 IT administrators and executives, Linux, UNIX and
Windows TCO Comparison, things aren't always as they seem: "All of the
major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM,
Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums
for must-have items such as technical service and support, product
warranties and licensing indemnification."
Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant
Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to
four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as
an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release. And nine out
of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any
tangible busine
The US Government has stated that Linux is a viable and valuable resource, and although it must be secure (duh), it is encouraged that more OS's besides Microsoft's should be used. Diversity is important. Linux is authorized for use throughout the government, and actually is used alot more than you would think.
While most government contracts do go to the lowest bidder, they are typically grouped together such that software is only a part of the bid (e.g. hardware, software, support, etc.), or the software might even be specified (150 computers with at least 512 mb of ram,...., running windows xp, with ms office and 2 years of support). I dont think they would take a bid for "100 license of an operating system" since the end use will probably dictate the operating system being used.
So most bids will include that fancy "total cost of ownership" thing microsoft touts. Still I think linux and other free and open alternatives will outshine their proprietary counterparts in many instances.
-- john
You sir, are an idiot. You do know that don't you?
The government actually cares very little about what OS is used. At most a couple of mid-grade civil servants might care but usually it's down to the suppliers.
Here's a random mix of technologies I've used whilst working on big government projects:: NT, Solaris, (mumble, mumble boxes I can't talk about but definately do not run anything from MS) and we used: log4j, struts (ok so that's a mistake), eclipse, Apache (web server and xml signature library) in development.
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
Because there is a solid break when comparing most proprietary software to FOSS. Proprietary software companies design their software so you can't easily switch to anything else. FOSS doesn't "lock the exit door" on you with software patents or proprietary data formats. You want to leave a FOSS program? Fine, leave and take your data elsewhere. Want to leave Microsoft? While it's possible to extract your data they purposely make it very difficult. In many cases even though a proprietary software program is more "refined" the long term costs of required licenses and updates greatly diminish it's value.
Imagine if your driver's license only allowed you to drive Ford cars since that's what you were driving when you took your driver's test. Most people would find this an unreasonable restriction. Don't get me wrong, Ford makes nice cars (I own a Focus ZTW) but what if I want something else? Why should I have to get another driver's license just to buy and drive a Honda, Toyoto or VW? The answer is I shouldn't have to. This is one of the arguments supporting FOSS over proprietary programs: the freedom to switch with minimal hassle when it's best.
The business model for most proprietary software companies is not to build great software (IMO except companies like Google) but how to bleed the customer dry and never let them go. Instead of improving their product they just tie the data in a proprietary format so you can't easily switch. Most proprietary software is also covered by EULAs which allow the company to demand you stop using their program upon demand, unlike FOSS. While this clause is rarely used Bill Gates once said he'd terminate all MS Windows licenses if the US Govt broke them apart. While a quick retraction followed, the point was he could legally do this. Imagine waking up this morning, booting up XP and getting a window that says "Microsoft has decided to terminate your license. If you wish to continue using this product please purchase a new license". You agreed to the EULA so you're stuck. I can say that I have no concerns of Linus or the people at Gentoo doing this to me. =)
Why can't people just create a prioritized list of requirements and then use it to pick the software that fits the best for them?
This is a reasonable question. If a proprietary software program works better than anything else, has an open data format and a reasonable amount of time (maybe two or so years) of no cost bug fixes then it's worth looking at. But how many proprietary programs pass this test? Some, but not many.
While your comment makes sense to us, most proprietary software companies aren't listening unlike many FOSS projects who are. Is all proprietary software evil and all FOSS good? Of course not. As you said "pick the best" and I agree. I just think that the rights that are included in FOSS many times outweigh most anything the proprietary world can offer.
Thanks for your comment. I suspect it's one that has people thinking.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Linux is used by the fbi for forensic research. The NSA added valuable code to linux to make it a lot more secure for the user and didn't even add any backdoors for evil agents to activate your computer over the net and hypnotize your dog into telling on you. NASA uses it in some roles. The army has switched from windows for it future soldier computer system to linux because they said that windows sucked donkey balls and even with billions to throw at it they couldn't get it stable were linux could and could do it on cheaper more robuust hardware. Well they didn't say as goverment never uses statements shorter then 10 pages but that is the gist of it.
So where the british goverment has said that linux can be considered, the germans have one town swithing the US has billions invested in it AND is giving back to the world free open code that did something amazingly usefull.
MS must be having a fit. Loosing contracts as the US army is not good.
It knows it can't compete at the top with companies like SAP. It says it doesn't want to but really it can't Not just that it ain't got the code. No one in their right mind would a major supply system on an OS everyone knows crashes. Often. (No don't tell me how XP is much more stable, when boeing is doing last minute ordering a reboot costs millions.)
And now it is loosing contracts to people who really should buy into the MS spin hook line and sinker. Some geeks running linux is bad enough, but generals buying it? What next? The suits at wall street, OOps to late. The suits at IBM? Oops to late.
So the US is plenty linux friendly. Just in a different way. Munich buying linux is nice for IBM and Suse (or was it redhat) but it means shit for the rest of us.
NSA adding security features as opensource to linux is very very nice indeed. Thank you american taxpayer for supporting our communist OS.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
TANSTAAFL ... "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" ... Lunch is a physical product, as is beer; software is not. It costs nothing to make a copy of Linux, except maybe the cost of the media to which it is recorded. Remeber that Free Software in the OSS movment is Free as in free speach, not as in free beer.
I am not sure to get your point. They put "being open-source" at the top of their priority list, that's all.
Part of that is correct, except that china, like many of us, essentially doesn't trust microsoft. The chinese have for a long time been supporters of linux as seen in this article here and here
Someone stole my old sig.