Slashdot Mirror
Korea Plans to Choose Linux City, University
thefirelane wrote to mention an ambitious plan in the works by the South Korean government. Work is underway to choose a city, which will become a place where open-source software will become the mainstream operating system. From the article: "The selected government and university will be required to install open-source software as a main operating infrastructure, for which the MIC will support with funds and technologies. In the long run, they will have to migrate most of their desktop and notebook computers away from the Windows program of Microsoft, the world's biggest maker of software. 'The test beds will prompt other cities and universities to follow suit through the showcasing of Linux as the major operating system without any technical glitches and security issues,' Lee said. "
showcasing of Linux as the major operating system without any technical glitches
Linux? No technical glitches? And he already proclaims this before the trial?
Boy, is he in for a shock...
Disclosure: I love Linux (for servers) and wouldn't choose anything else. But I sure have seen my share of "glitches"!
I say if Microsoft is the answer to the question, it must have been a stupid question. Go Linux!! :-)
ConsultingFair.com
Actually, in Korea, everybody uses Windows. The article claims that the desktop penetration is 1%, as opposed to the 3% globally. I, myself, have never met anyone who uses it besides myself, and people whom I mention it to give me confused looks. Hangul Office puts out a version of Linux (I think they just merged with Asianux), but it's given away for free in computer stores and still gathers dust.
Great timing for the article: I'll start looking for a new job here the end of next month, and will certainly put in a resume at the university chosen by ROK.
Put identity in the browser.
- When did anyone ever have a choice of what OS comes on a new PC? For instance, have you ever tried to buy a GNU/Linux notebook?
- How often is it in the interests of an employer to offer employees a choice of operating systems? Only in a few, very specialised cases.
Also, "the right tool for the job" may well be something beautiful but expensive that requires a great effort to make locally, if part of "the job" specifically includes keeping money in the local economy rather than sending it to a foreign corporation. Remember, no matter how much you have to pay them, local programmers pay local taxes, drink in local pubs, spend their money in local stores, take their friends and family to visit local tourist attractions, and generally benefit the local economy.Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Look, IT departments, governments, managers who sit whacking off in cubicles all day make this choice every single day, regardless of what flavor or company they cater to. Be it MS, Linux, Mac, etc, etc.
It's rarely decided by the majority of the users, but done on a cost/benefit analysis..or through lobbying.
As it stands right now, most of the public schools in america (and a good many private ones.. from K- Uni)push Microsoft, Dell, Apple, etc. and at times this wasn't what was best for the job, but the lobbying and bidding of corporations who get thier foot in the door. Linux doesn't have many lobbyists if any, FOSS really doesn't either. There's some organizations out there that promote it, but that's really about it.
Linux and FOSS has the flexibility to do any job MS or Apple can do. No.. you might not be running the exact piece of software that you want, but guess what. YOu can get by. If i REALLY wanted to use GNU Cash, or Scribus, or Dia, (as a professor) would an IT dept be as swift to get me a linux machine? If i went and complained to it
Bottom line is, this can do the job, and it saves tax payers in the long run. Using linux, makes people a bit more tech savy too. You begin to define things as.. a web browser.. vs the "little blue E". It's a word processor, not Word. You begin to understand basic security principles..like not running with admin rights all day every day. You begin to understand that programs are nothing more than a collection of files and how to manipulate that to your advantage rather than the ol' EXE and following wizard dependency.
I can't begin to tell you how pissed off i stay for my local, state, and federal government to pay what they do for each copy of MS Office just so the majority of dipshits in the world can use Fax and Memo templates all day. Or Copies of Windows so someone can just have web and email access. From a business standpoint, it's just fiscally wasteful. And that doesn't even touch the security and stability issues.
No per seat fees and you get the source. Who actually benefits? It is not much use to a sole trader. He cannot spare the time to fix bugs and recompile, and he is only saving one license fee.
On the other hand, you only have to fix a bug once. A large company can employ a few free software programmers to take advantage of access to the source. They can compare the costs to what they save on license fees. If they are big enough, they are bound to come out ahead.
It is completely natural for heads of large organisations and governments to want to force through the adoption of free software, for it is at the top of the organisation that per seat license fees are agregated and compared to the once per organisation costs of hiring your own experts.
you could eliminate the hours and hours of headaches from virii and worms
And add hours and hours of headaches from people who can't figure out what to do, glitchy software, or having to use a crappy clone of some Windows product that works better.
Comment of the year