Microsoft Attempts to Quash OSS Recommendations

An anonymous reader writes "Inside Higher Ed has a story detailing Microsoft's attempt to alter a report created by the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education. Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president at Microsoft's Worldwide Public Sector division, complained about recommendations in the report to look into 'open source' and 'open content' at higher education institutions across the country. Elliott, who is on the voting committee, waited until the last minute and tried to have the report changed after a public vote. Although she does have a point that 'open source' is a development model, it still has collaboration at its heart. Can Microsoft argue against 'open' and win?"

Comments

MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[IntelliAdmin]

Before: The commission encourages the creation of incentives to promote the development of open-source and open-content projects at universities and colleges across the United States, enabling the open sharing of educational materials from a variety of institutions, disciplines, and educational perspectives. Such a portal could stimulate innovation, and serve as the leading resource for teaching and learning. New initiatives such as OpenCourseWare, the Open Learning Initiative, the Sakai Project, and the Google Book project hold out the potential of providing universal access both to general knowledge and to higher education. After: The commission encourages the creation of incentives to promote the development of information-technology-based collaborative tools and capabilities at universities and colleges across the United States, enabling access, interaction, and sharing of educational materials from a variety of institutions, disciplines, and educational perspectives. Both commercial development and new collaborative paradigms such as open source, open content, and open learning will be important in building the next generation learning environments for the knowledge economy. Looks like one member was still not happy with the after and wanted "Open source" removed because of the possibility that it would enter them into a copyright debate.

Windows Admin Tools

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[jsrlepage]

"knowledge economy"

since when did the second world war become an alterable book, an interpretation-asking event and a consumer product?
oh wait...

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Ksisanth]

"open content" (a "term which can mean different things and enter us into some copyright debate").

Frankly, I'm surprised she didn't object to 'open learning', too.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[ronkronk]

I'm South African, I haven't lived in SA for over 15 years, but I was an IBM mainframe operator there in the 80's and I still visit regularly and have family and friends there. The plus side of the racist white minority rule in SA is that the country got the best infrastructure in Africa, which it still has except that the current government caters to more than a small white minority and thus has other pressing problems as well to deal with.

South Africa is the original home of Mark Shuttleworth and his foundation Ubuntu has an ongoing task in South Africa to teach and install Ubuntu in schools (Hint to Microsoft: It's one fuck of a lot cheaper than a Windows solution). I chat regularly with my mom down there who has a Windows PC. South Africa's biggest problem is a monopoly telecommunication company that refuses to allow competition or lower prices on internet access, thus ensuring some of the highest access prices in the world.

However, if you go accross the border to the north, in Zimbabwe, which is in total financial ruin with an autocratic president who hates whites and the blames everyone but himself for the crap that is going on there, you'll find an infrastructure that was similarly built up by the original white minority government, but one that has almost no new investment since Mugabe came to power ensuring that growth in the IT sector there is non existent.

And that is the case all over Africa, you have some countries which have fairly decent political systems, such as South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, etc and you have others which are either run by despotic tyrants, plagued by tribal warfare or thoroughly corrupt or a mixture of these.

In those countries where there is a semi decent system, the education is usually quite good. In those which are chaotic the people are lucky if they can read or write and those who do know the internet, know it usually from an internet cafe.

Linux has advantages due to its flexibility and low price. Claiming that teaching people Microsoft is better because there are more Microsoft trained people is only true if there really are trained Microsoft people around. Usually, the level of trained Microsoft people doesn't reach the level of even an MCSE, since we all know what an MCSE POS costs, so that advantage is null. Training people from scratch with Linux is in my opinion better since a basic grasp of Linux will enable someone to manage in extremely difficult circumstances where hardware and other constraints would make it extremely difficult to keep a system running with Windows.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Wellspring]

It was the MS rep on the committee both times. She finally gave in, but not without a fight.

However, I'd say that the only reason this blew up was because she didn't notice the line in the first vote. Had she expressed her opinions then, we wouldn't even be hearing about the debate. But due to her corporate commitments, she didn't read the report until after she voted to support it.

I bet that that PR types in MS are letting loose with both barrels on her over this. It's more a matter of inattention than strategy.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[soft_guy]

Frankly, I'm surprised she didn't object to 'open learning', too.

Or just "learning"...

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows Admin Tools

Loser. You forgot to link your advertisement. Quit spamming us with your crap.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Maximum Prophet]

Unlikely. People at that level have teams of people to read and analyze everything.

More likely she planned to wait until the last moment, and squeeze it through so that nobody noticed. If it had come up for debate sooner, she might have lost, and OSS supporters might have put even stronger language into the doc.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[smcdow]

You sound like an absolute idiot when you use profanity.

Geeze, when did Slashdot acquire so many prudes?

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Anonymous Coward]

South Africa's biggest problem (!!!) is a monopoly telecommunication company that refuses to allow competition or lower prices on internet access, thus ensuring some of the highest access prices in the world.

Um, that, or maybe the fact that 1 in 5 South African adults are HIV positive.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean, "why does Slashdot attract so few people with a sense of decency and a basic grasp of the English language."

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[S.P.B.Wylie]

Profanity, though not the prettiest of words, are words in the English language for a reason, and they have their place. It is true that when they are over used, they often show a small vocabulary (there are better words you could to say what you mean on a regular basis), but when an extreme emphasis is due, they do get people's attention.

In any case, you shouldn't discount an entire argument just because of one use of profanity. It is just a word, and you will miss good opinions if you close your mind like that. Specifically, you might just hear opinions like your own, which is pointless.

And, personally, I am surprised he swore only once when talking about Microsoft. Talk about restraint.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how this was modded "Troll", while the retard who doesn't have a handle on the English language is modded "Interesting." I guess that's what is to be expected from a bunch of basement-dwelling Linux fanboys.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[HeroreV]

Sense of decency? You do not get to decide for everyone what is decent. Maybe visitors to Slashdot are just more open minded to what is decent. I for one didn't find his usage of "fuck" indecent.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[HeroreV]

If South Africa was as financially prosperous and as well educated as the United States do you really think there would be such a huge problem with HIV? Attack the source of the problem, not the results of it.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Anonymous Coward]

In any case, you shouldn't discount an entire argument just because of one use of profanity. It is just a word, and you will miss good opinions if you close your mind like that.

On the other hand, if you use profanity (especially in such an idiotic manner as the poster did), you risk having your opinion discarded entirely, even though it may be valid.

Specifically, you might just hear opinions like your own, which is pointless.

In my experience, I have seen intelligent people make many interesting statements that I had not considered without resorting to using profanity. I don't fear missing out on any insight due to ignoring profane posts.

And, personally, I am surprised he swore only once when talking about Microsoft. Talk about restraint.

Interestingly enough, I and several of my colleagues have had several unpleasant experiences with products from many different manufacturers (including many open source applications and operating systems) and have yet to resort to pointless profanity.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Vexorian]

Decent language? The whole idea that some words are offensive or dirty and some aren't is kind of lame and actually far from any intellectual insight. What matters is the use you give to words and in this case Fucking cheap is a really good term to use cause it highlights the fact that there is a major cost difference and that South African schools would rather spend less.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Anonymous Coward]

What matters is the use you give to words and in this case F***** cheap is a really good term to use cause it highlights the fact that there is a major cost difference and that South African schools would rather spend less.

That's a great run-on sentence, by the way. Your command over the English language astounds me. You've just proved my point- intelligent people don't need to use profanity, but morons do.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Peaceful_Patriot]

Well gosh, I guess we should all try to be just like you and your colleagues. We should all try to speak like you because obviously you have such a wonderful grasp of the English language and are able to express yourself so articulately without profanity.

Well, guess what? I dont give a damn about your opinion regarding profanity and couldn't really care less if snobs like yourself value my point when I use it.

I agree that excessive use makes you look childish and boorish, but your post makes you sound like an elitist and a jerk.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[dangitman]

On the other hand, if you use profanity (especially in such an idiotic manner as the poster did), you risk having your opinion discarded entirely, even though it may be valid.

Why? Only an idiot would dismiss an argument because it contained profanity. Intelligent people wouldn't care.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Mistshadow2k4]

You sound like an absolute idiot when you use profanity. No one with any intelligence will take you seriously when you use language like this.

Yeah? Would you have preferred he said "a darn sight cheaper"? Because that would be the same thing except for the concept of profanity, which is that some words are bad while other words aren't -- even though they mean the same thing. Everyone with any intelligence realizes this. If I hadn't decided not to moderate anymore and I came across this while meta-modding, it would've been one of the very, very few times something was modded up that I would mark "unfair". Your statement was rude and just plain silly.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[Anonymous Coward]

LoL... My friend, it's not as much an educational problem, than a cultural one. In a culture where having more than one wife is seen as your right and where having just one sexual partner is absolutely outrageous, do you really think education helps much? With that being said, I do agree that not nearly enough is being done. Not to mention that the leadership of South Africa seems all to content with things the way they are. I do however want to "balance" things out by saying, in this context HIV/AIDS has nothing to do with OpenSource, etc. I will also say this: The United States isn't all moonshine and roses either. You've got just as many problems as we do. Safety in schools for one(I still can't understand how kids can shoot, stab, kill each other in school). A piece of advice, don't be too quick to pass judgement on others, or rather, as in this case, nations(or countries).

By all means moderate this down, because it is rather off-topic.

Re:MS up to its dirty tricks again.

[HeroreV]

You're assuming South Africa would retain its culture if it modernized and became prosperous. Sadly, that is often not the case. Many people around the world dislike modernizing because of that.

The United States has plenty of problems, but lethal violence in schools isn't one of them.

I'm not trying to pass judgment, just thinking about a few generalities that most likely apply to South Africa as well as many other countries.

Hmm

[Klaidas]

Microsoft Attempts to Quash OSS Recommendations

No, you mean, really? Wow, that's a surprise.
(No, I'm not trolling. It's just that... I think you all know what I mean.)

Ummmmm

[Fuckin ROBOTS!]

Hasn't Microsoft already won?
Why does everyone liken these things to a contest or struggle?

I'm reminded of a line from the movie Gladiator:
A people should know when they are conquered.

Re:Ummmmm

[arbarbonif]

Would you? Would I?

Re:Ummmmm

[hey!]

Hasn't Microsoft already won?

Yes. Which is why they have to be watched so they don't use their clout to entrench themselves, because it would quash innovation.

Why does everyone liken these things to a contest or struggle?

Because business is experienced by people who engage in it as a struggle. What you are noting is not only undoubtedly true, it's nothing new. I think it was E.B. White of Elements of Style and Charlotte's Web fame who noted that business jargon tends to picture the businessman like a knight mounted on his charger riding to battle.

Re:Ummmmm

[devjj]

It depends on how you look at it. Microsoft has certainly won countless battles to this point, but one oft-overlooked point these days is that Microsoft is hemorrhaging marketshare basically everywhere. Regardless of how fast it happens (although it is accelerating right now), people are moving away from Windows to Mac OS X and Linux. The interest in OpenOffice exists because people are starting to grow tired of Microsoft Office. Firefox won more than 10% of the internet browser marketshare, and almost all of that came right out of IE's stranglehold. AOL and Yahoo have completely and totally beaten down Windows Messenger. Apple's iTunes - while likely to take a mild hit from URGE - isn't going to lose its majority share any time soon. And let's not forget Google.. does anyone really believe that MSN Search stands any kind of a chance?

This isn't to say that Microsoft is going to lose its majority status where it is in the majority (most places) any time soon, but it's worth noting regardless.

So, has Microsoft conquered? I don't think so. A people are only conquered when there is no hope for their victory, and we are still in the very early stages of what will eventually result in Microsoft being given a more fitting role in the computing community. A role where there are viable options, and true competition. I can't wait.

Re:Ummmmm

[mabhatter654]

Business should be a "sport" not a "battle"! Most industries follow that model, there's only so much work one company can do RIGHT, so it's more like sports where different teams lead each season. Nobody expects the winning NFL team to hurt or maim the other players.. that's not sporting. The other teams still show up next season and play again. Microsoft, Oracle, Walmart, and others see business as "WAR".. trying to win all the games at any cost.. trouble is that it's not "fun" anymore. And you have 1000's of people out of work because some already rich company wants ANOTHER .1% profit so squashed their companies with half-rate low cost products and FUD advertizing.

Re:Ummmmm

[mattox]

""Microsoft is hemorrhaging marketshare basically everywhere"" How do you know this? I think your living in a fantasy world when you really think lots of people are actually moving from MS to Mac/Linux.

Re:Ummmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft is hemorrhaging marketshare basically everywhere.

Dude, I only wish I could come up with a product or business idea that would let me "hemorrhage" market share everywhere, and still end the year with an 80+% market share in my core markets...

Let's not get too giddy with the "This is teh year of Linux on teh Desktop!!!!!oneone!" and "MAC OS X IS TEH ROXORZ!!!!!!" headlines. There seems to be this strange perception that, while Linux & Apple are advancing and eating market share, Microsoft is just going to sit back and say, "Hmm, not much we can do about that, guess we better roll over and take it..."

Re:Ummmmm

[ozbird]

I think it was E.B. White of Elements of Style and Charlotte's Web fame who noted that business jargon tends to picture the businessman like a knight mounted on his charger riding to battle.

In this case, Don Quixote. Care for a windmill?

Re:Ummmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Not commenting on your analogy, because I don't need one to help me understand the business at hand, I will point out that the purpose of a for-profit company is to make the largest possible profit.

In a capitalist economy, even when a company reaches the point where you consider it 'rich' enough, it must continue to seek ways to increase profits (or revenues or market share or whatever other measure its executives wish to target). There is no point at which it can kick back and relax because its competitors would gain ground, improving their competitive position and threatening the long term health of our newly 'rich' company.

For a profit making company to not do everything it can legally do to expand is an abdication of its responsibility to its interested parties (shareholders, employees, customers, etc). This includes selling 'half-rate low cost products' if that is what its customers wish to purchase.

Re:Ummmmm

[muyuubyou]

It is also any team's objective to win as much as possible.

That's why there is a regulator body so they can't just go over the line - in business world that is supposing to be the government. The government has to set a small, tight set of rules and ENFORCE them. When that doesn't happen things go horribly bad.

Re:Ummmmm

[Locutus]

they've already said they will be spending roughly $2 billion on marketing this fiscal year. I don't think that is any indication of them rolling over and taking it.

And I wonder how they original poster came up with the "hemorrhage" bit regarding marketshare. Outside of the MS Windows monopolies( OS, office suite ) they've done nothing but "hemorrhage" money. Xbox, MSN, WinCE, etc have all lost billions and billions over the years and the marketshare they were able to purchase just doesn't seem to have been lost to anybody except maybe in the phone/embedded sector.

you probably called it right with the 'giddy' label. But any success against MSFT is reason for short bits of giddiness but reality must return. Linux isn't going away, OSS isn't going away, and Microsoft isn't going away. IMO.

LoB

Re:Ummmmm

[IllForgetMyNickSoonA]

He actually gave you quite a few very interesting examples in support of his statement.

Re:Ummmmm

[dpilot]

But no team wants the other teams to all go bankrupt an fold, because their entire being is in the competition, itself.

Assuming they could get away with it, no business would object to all of its competitors going bankrupt, freeing them from the fetters of competition.

Can they argue against 'open'

[guysmilee]

Can they argue against 'open' and 'win32'? I say yes they can!

Re:Can they argue against 'open'

[megaditto]

You know, FY2005 $12,600,000,000 in profits can go a long way.

So yes, they could win. Considering what they could do having that kind of cash at their disposal, it is just amazing at how nice they play.

tinfoil time: I am told one could arrange a hit for about 10k... which means MS could 'take care' of some 1,260,000 OSS developers.

Re:Can they argue against 'open'

[Anonymous Coward]

Only FBI-agents will take a hit for 10K and less.

Re:Can they argue against 'open'

[Anonymous Coward]

How about 'taking care' of 12,600 developers for $1,000,000 each? You could probably buy ten Russian-made cruise missiles for $1M.

Define Win

[Analogy Man]

Can Microsoft argue against 'open' and win?

It all depends on how you define winning. Does it mean having a few senators and congressmen in your pocket? Does it mean having a public debate where it is clear that your position is correct? Does it mean spreading enough FUD that people are confused/fearful enough not to take an "undesirable" action?

My interpretation of a Microsoft win is to perpetuate a perception that OSS is a hippy commune free for all not to be trusted by the government. It fits with the current mode of debate in DC. Adopt an rediculous position that cannot be supported with facts or logic and label anyone that challenges it a extremist fanatical zealot.

Re:Define Win

[Terrasque]

Microsoft word is the law, you commie hippie zealot!

Re:Define Win

[Analogy Man]

Adopt an rediculous position that cannot be supported with facts or logic and label anyone that challenges it a extremist fanatical zealot.

What I find amusing is that someone modded this Troll (I presume for the statement above.)

Missing is the statement above whether the fanatical zealots are the "religious right" that piss off the liberals or the "tree hugging liberals" that the NeoCons get disgusted with.

It is the polarizing statements like I just made here that are the problem. We as a country can operate just fine with a variety of opinions and ideologies. It is a problem when debate and spirited discussion is replaced by sentiments of treason and corruption held against anyone with a difference in view or opinion.

Re:Define Win

[pravuil]

Where's our (our meaning the linux community) senators and congressmen in our pockets? Oh wait, we don't have to depend on senators, we depend on government agencies already using Linux both before and after all the seucirty breakins. Can't say that Microsoft did a good job educating our own government on how to secure their systems. BTW, doesn't the NSA work on selinux in their spare time? http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/

And...

[GillBates0]

...out flies a chair out of the open Window.

Re:And...

[kimvette]

I'm surprised there isn't a flash game where you are Steve Ballmer throwing chairs at RMS, Linus, Jobs, etc.

womg 1 paragraph...

[Tomthemage]

Let's face it... M$ is not fond of open source. Does anyone honestly think they would allow something like that to pass without putting up some kind of objection? You open source people need to pick your battles.

Re:womg 1 paragraph...

[kimvette]

Not true; Microsoft does back/sponsor and contribute open source projects. Look at DotNetNuke, IBuySpy, Paint.net

Of course, they only back projects which are absolutely married to Windows and not cross-platform code.

Re:womg 1 paragraph...

[Blakey Rat]

They've also worked with the Creative Commons community to add easy licensing tools to Microsoft Office products, where you can set your CC-compatible license by selecting a menu item and filling in a few fields, and Word/Excel will respect that license (at least as well as software can) when you pass the file on.

I don't think Microsoft has anything in particular against open source, personally.

Re:womg 1 paragraph...

[doodlebumm]

Let's look at why MS would do as you suggest.

They want people to be able to use a product that adds value to their product making it more likely for consumers to buy their product. Once they find products that fit into their product that people find most useful, they add those features into the next update of their product. It's like they get free product research and development. Who's not support that?

MS does not support anything which is truely cross-platform, and has the potential to make them loose a single penny (or user) to another product.

Now show me a single open source thing that MS supports that isn't in this type of model, and I'll capitulate.

Re:womg 1 paragraph...

[canuck57]

You open source people need to pick your battles.

They are and Microsoft is loosing faster than they would ever admit. None Vista PCs, many will run Linux. Cash going out the doors to Microsoft is getting noticed in the board rooms. Cost presures either are going to make Microsoft get more cheaper, better, faster, more secure and loose DRM or the JQ public is going to move on. Many already are.

Most "technology" gets cheaper, faster and more reliable. Windows is far behind this curve. Time for a change.

It's like a Seinfeld episode

[jkabbe]

....an argument about nothing. Do people actually read these reports when they are deciding what to do? This sounds like the public sector version of a "mission statement," and we all know how useful those are.

Re:It's like a Seinfeld episode

[mabhatter654]

in this case it's is from a Federal agency... when somebody like MA wants to implement OSS in schools or offices they can point to this statement as "approval" for moving to OSS projects. M$ doesn't want ANY public recognition of OSS at the federal level. Imagine the effect if 1 State's budget for Office went to OpenOffice.org instead!!! That would cover their funding for several YEARS, but be a drop to Microsoft. The money would speed an OSS project up by 5 years or better... then still be FREE... MS can't let that happen at all costs.

There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

Someone should define what they mean when they say OSS software, if they are meaning in the BSD way, MS has less of a legitimate beef. But if they are thinking GPL way, then I think MS probably has a very legitimate beef. If public money is used to push certain products, outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it; I think lots of companies probably would have a beef with it.

If it's adopting licenses that basically directly prevent them from doing something, I would very much expect them to have a problem with it and quash the recomendation. If it's truely a free license with no restrictions than I would expect them to have no problems with it.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[Rob T Firefly]

What's the legalese translation for "free as in beer?"

Re:There is an interesting question here

[Volante3192]

Don't think there is one. It's an unknown concept in that language.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish. The GPL might prevent companies trying to sell me stuff my tax dollars have already paid for once... If anything it's better than the (often blatantly ignored) rule that software developed with public money is supposed to be public domain and uncopyrightable in the first place (NASA gets, or at least used to get, this right, at least).

Of course companies would "have a beef with it", but government is by the people of the people and for the people. And corporations aren't people, no matter what mere law says.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[ultranova]

If public money is used to push certain products, outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it; I think lots of companies probably would have a beef with it.

You mean like I'm not allowed to use Windows XP despite having paid a portion of the school's copy ?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[Bob9113]

But if they are thinking GPL way, ... outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it;

GPL covers only redistribution without providing source, not use. Proprietary software has all the same restrictions, and many more. You can read more about it, including seeing the actual license (something you apparently have not done), at http://www.fsf.org/

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

That argument is like saying I should be able to drag the photocopier out from the school because I paid for it as well. Or that I should be able to pull up a few boards from the gym to add onto my house. Do you really want to go down that rathole, you are able to see the difference between the two aren't you?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

You do realize that to MS "use" is on redistributing something don't you? They'd have a really, really, really expensive R&D with hardly any return if they only developed for applications inside MS.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[ElleyKitten]

So wait, you think the GPL is too restrictive because it requires you to give out the source if you modify and redistribute it, but someone complains about Microsoft's licensing and you think they're being unreasonable? WTF?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[nine-times]

Really? Huh. So when I drag the photocopier out from the school, students can no longer use it. When I pull up a few boards from the gym, I've damaged the floor there, and people can't play basketball anymore. When I use a copy of Windows.... where's the damage to the school again?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[ElleyKitten]

You do realize that to MS "use" is on redistributing something don't you? They'd have a really, really, really expensive R&D with hardly any return if they only developed for applications inside MS. And they can redistribute GPL software with the source, or they can choose not to use GPL software. What's the problem?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[PseudononymousCoward]

On the contrary, there is a perfectly good legalese word for free-as-in-beer: gratis. It is the free-as-in-speech concept for which there is no generally recognized succinct legal term. Libre is commonly used in the OSS community to denote the concept, but in legal circles, libre is more commonly used as an astrological reference.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[yankpop]

I think you're still missing the point. If the government were to support the development of GPL software, the product would be available for use by everyone. Microsoft would have just as much access as anyone else. If they wanted to modify and redistribute the software, they'd be obliged to release the code just like everyone else.

But no-one is forcing them to do that. They are still free to develop closed-source code and charge what they like for it. The only thing they aren't allowed to do is modify the government-sponsored GPL code and then sell it back to the people who have already paid for the initial development. Actually, they could even do that, but they'd have to provide the source code as well.

These arguments always confuse me. The GPL gives everyone more access to software, not less. Microsoft hasn't been forced to open the code to Windows just because GNOME exists. If the government sponsored some close-source software development, not only would Microsoft not be able to incorporate it into their own productes, they couldn't even see the source. GPL is no more restrictive for MS than any other software. It's actually less restrictive, since they can see exactly what the code does, should they wish to make their own products compatible.

The whole argument boils down to: no freedoms good (the status quo), some freedoms bad (the GPL), all freedoms good (unrestricted use of FOSS code, even to the point of taking it out of the FOSS realm by closing your source). This is silly.

yp.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[dragonsomnolent]

I don't understand your question at all. Are you saying that MS sees using the OS as redistributing it? I don't follow.

redistribute
tr.v. redistributed, redistributing, redistributes
To distribute again in a different way; reallocate.
--the free dictionary
How is using an OS re-distributing it?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[budgenator]

Someone should define what they mean when they say OSS software
what difference does it make which liciense they use

The commission encourages the creation of incentives to promote the development of open-source and open-content projects at universities and colleges across the United States, ...

So if I write a VB script to average student grades and release to other instructors via a GPL it's going to hurt Microsoft? If I'm running Apache, PHP, MySQL and Moodle on single windows server when I have a site liciense for Ms SQL server and IIS it's going to hurt windows? If Microsoft wants to use the code I wrote, let them come to me or my university and negotiate a license. Microsoft is afraid that the universities are going to take back their students and stop being unthinking extensions of Microsoft marketing, and get another generation hooked on colaborative developement of open source projects like back in the unix days.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

but someone complains about Microsoft's licensing and you think they're being unreasonable?

DO NOT EVER PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, I'd like to see a direct quote of mine ever saying that. Back your bullshit lies up.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

So you are saying that it's alright for the government to take money from you, make you pay for some research and basically say you can only have access to it if you use it this way? Tell me why the government should not be pushing completely unencombered licensing of research technology? Why should the government be forcing ideology down anyones throats, either closed MS or FSF approaches. Shouldn't it just be free to be used by anyone, in anyway shape or form?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

Again going down a stupid rathole, with that thought I should be able to include any GPL software in closed software because (to use your own words) "where's the damage"?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

I don't think I'm missing the point at all, I think maybe you didn't read my post. Because the last line is almost what I said but let me modify it to what I was actually saying:

The whole argument boils down to: no freedoms BAD (the status quo), some freedoms bad (the GPL), all freedoms good (unrestricted use of FOSS code, even to the point of taking it out of the FOSS realm by closing your source).

Re:There is an interesting question here

[the_B0fh]

It is not the law that says that corporations are people. It's not even the judges that say that. It's a fscking law clerk who put it down as such, and it became precedent. Bah.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[ElleyKitten]

but someone complains about Microsoft's licensing and you think they're being unreasonable?

DO NOT EVER PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH, I'd like to see a direct quote of mine ever saying that. Back your bullshit lies up.

This other dude said:

You mean like I'm not allowed to use Windows XP despite having paid a portion of the school's copy ?

Then you said:

That argument is like saying I should be able to drag the photocopier out from the school because I paid for it as well. Or that I should be able to pull up a few boards from the gym to add onto my house. Do you really want to go down that rathole, you are able to see the difference between the two aren't you?

I took from this that you think the other dude was being unreasonable for wanting a copy of XP because his taxes paid for the school's copy. Am I wrong?

If the school had bought GPL software instead, they could give him as many copies as he wants, and do a lot of things with it they couldn't do with proprietary software. So I don't understand being against using public money to buy GPL software if you're not also against using public money to buy proprietary software.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[NeutronCowboy]

Newsflash - companies have NO inherent legal rights. Only people have. As such, only people can have a legitimate beef, not companies. Your post unfortunately shows that corporations have already won one battle: the idea that corporations can have legitimate grievances that go beyond business contracts.

Quite honestly, I think that corporations shouldn't even be allowed in the same room when public policy is being discussed. They can send an employee who can provide some professional insight, but that's it. No "MS disagrees with this", not even a "we at MS think this is a bad idea". The entire concept that something can be bad for people but still good for corporations and should therefore be discussed is completely ludicrous. Without people, corporations are nothing.

Eh, what do I know. I'm not a highly bri.... I mean, supported Senator, Congresscritter or other political weasel. Should I just bend over now, or can I wait until there is a Department of Corporate Wellfare?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[NeutronCowboy]

These arguments are DESIGNED to confuse people. MS is very well aware that what it is putting forth has no grounding in reality. However, they are just as aware of the threat that a government sponsored F/OSS project poses to their bottomline. Caught between advancing spurious arguments against a win/win situation for the general population and protecting their bottomline, what do you think these people are going to do?

This is why I'm losing more and more respect for the executive section in companies - I've never seen people lie so blatantly, so happily and then be paid untold millions in bonus and golden parachutes. If they would have been in a schoolyard, they'd have gotten a beating.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

Actually you are very, very wrong on the interpretation. I don't think that I have a direct right to anything the government purchases with tax money, whether it be paper hats, or software. I do think everyone has a right to profit from the intellectual research they paid for with those taxes and I think that the government should not be forcing any restrictions on it. In my opinion proprietary is bad and the GPL is bad, only completely unencombered government research is good.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

Maybe read the parent post, the one where he goes on and on about how using it doesn't require you to do anything. And my post was basically his blathering on and on about "use" really means nothing because Microsoft really doesn't care about using it internally, since it isn't making software for itself, but for redistribution to others.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[nine-times]

I was just pointing out that it's not the same thing. When you steal things or destroy things in the physical world, you're doing a sort of damage that isn't present when you copy software.

That doesn't mean that copying software is necessarily right, but it means that your analogy of tearing up a floor isn't apt.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[Anonymous Coward]

The GPL only restricts you if you honour copyright law. So, if you want to violate the GPL, you have to violate copyright law. And that's the way it should be - contempt for unjust laws should be encouraged.

The GPL is designed to fight the evil of an unjust law: copyright monopolies. I'd be perfectly happy for you to use my "GPL" code in your closed or open software, provided you had no power to restrict redistribution, modification, modified redistribution, reverse engineering and other analysis, etc. of closed or open software you might release! A free market without copyright monopoly* for software, closed and open competing fairly...

Remember the FSF line: "Without copyright the GPL would be unenforceable. It would also be unnecessary".

* This the core mistake of closed sourcer "free software is communism" idiocy: most free software supporters are ultra-libertarian, not commie. The should remove the log from their own eyes - copyright law is state suppression of the free market on their behalf...

Re:There is an interesting question here

[ultranova]

That argument is like saying I should be able to drag the photocopier out from the school because I paid for it as well. Or that I should be able to pull up a few boards from the gym to add onto my house. Do you really want to go down that rathole, you are able to see the difference between the two aren't you?

What I can't see is why Microsoft (or "a lot of companies" can complain when they can't profit from their taxes, but I can't. Please explain, oh insane one, so I can avoid falling to this rathole and getting eaten alive by rapid vermin.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[dragonsomnolent]

Thank you for the clarification. I was a bit confused.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[rs232]

Someone should define what they mean when they say OSS software,

.. distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

.. The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software ..

The program must include source code ..

The license must allow modifications and derived works ..

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor ..

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed ..

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution ..

The license must not place restrictions on other software ..

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

The Open Source Definition

if they are meaning in the BSD way, MS has less of a legitimate beef. But if they are thinking GPL way, then I think MS probably has a very legitimate beef.

Yea, their beef is they don't want anything but MS.innovation used in Education. For other software housed who's name don't start with the letter M there is no problem in using Open Source or even the dreaded GPL for instance.

'if a program "can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then the GPL does not apply to it"'

If public money is used to push certain products, outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it; I think lots of companies probably would have a beef with it.

What 'certain products' are you prevented from using that is paid out of 'public money'?

If it's adopting licenses that basically directly prevent them from doing something, I would very much expect them to have a problem with it and quash the recomendation. If it's truely a free license with no restrictions than I would expect them to have no problems with it.

What are 'they' prevented from doing by these licenses?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[Monchanger]

That seems like s a good example: You didn't buy a portion of the license, you paid part of the price it cost so that the school could use it. The EULA doesn't allow you to use the license the school bought while they are using it. It doesn't even let the school use it on two computers if they did not purchase a site license.

But regarding the corporate aspect, Microsoft can't really complain about government's actions, any more than Apple could complain about the government purchasing Wintel boxes. The government writes its own rules of purchasing, including those regarding vendors and price shopping. The private world has little influence on this, as should be- there's just too much opportunity for corruption otherwise.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[Anonymous Coward]

Libre is commonly used in the OSS community to denote the concept, but in legal circles, libre is more commonly used as an astrological reference.

bringing up an interesting but unrelated point about the common use of astrology in law offices for determing how successful certain cases will be.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[tinkerghost]

If public money is used to push certain products, outcomes are presented for public use but you are not allowed use it, even though they paid for a portion of it;

Of course they are allowed to use it. With a BSD liscense they can take everyone's work, encapsulate it with a MS GUI and claim it's theirs - with a note in the copywrite saying "well not all ours - these guys helped". With a GPL liscense, they can wrap it in a MS GUI, but then they have to show everyone how to do the GUI too.

I don't know about the Mozilla and Apache liscenses, or the other lesser used ones out there, I'm sure there are some that are 'free for non-commercial use & verboten for commercial'. I agree that that type of liscense wouldn't go over well with businesses, but I don't know how common they are - also, I don't know that colleges would generally use that type of liscense for their projects.

Remember this is a document that is designed to do nothing more than be a broad outline of the future heading of higher education. There are not a lot of specifics in here. For this bit, they are saying that open - in the sense of colaberative - projects are the way to go as opposed to closed prorietary solutions.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[yankpop]

I read your post. Obviously I did, if even you agree, but for one word, with my synopsis of your argument. And I still think your argument is misdirected. You place the GPL in opposition to the BSD license, and argue that it reduces users freedoms by comparison. I think, especially where Microsoft is concerned, it is more accurate to place the GPL in opposition to the status quo proprietary software license. The great majority of software in use today is closed source, and the GPL is a response to that. It certainly wasn't a response to the lack of freedoms associated with public domain code.

I think it is also important to note that the GPL isn't just about licensing individual programs. It provides a system for enabling the free exchange of ideas, at least in the realm of software. You may think that's hooey, or anti-business, or whatever. Fine. Don't use GPL code then. But don't pretend that it is being imposed on you.

If a developer chooses to release their code under the GPL that is their choice, and we have to respect it, by respecting the terms of the license. Just as we are free to respect the rights of closed source developers, or choose not to use their product.

yp.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should the government be forcing ideology down anyones throats, either closed MS or FSF approaches.

They've been doing that for hundreds of years now.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

Maybe you should first put down your zealotry and reread this whole thread again, because you've ventured way, way off course. I've never said anything bad about the GPL for individuals, you want to release it under the GPL fine (heck I have).

What I am saying is that for tax funded projects, there should be absolutely no restrictions against using it anyway I want if some of my dollars went to it. The GPL has restrictions and should *not* be the release license for tax funded projects, nor should closed source released products come out of government funded projects. It isn't about the status quo or anything else, it's simply that government funded projects paid for by taxable dollars, should not have any burdens upon for the simple reason that it's the only way all parties are treated fairly, elsewise someone who actually paid for it getting screwed.

Also if it's government funded than it IS being forced on me, maybe not in use but in paying for something encombered with a restricted license (closed or GPL).

Re:There is an interesting question here

[canuck57]

GPL covers only redistribution without providing source, not use. Proprietary software has all the same restrictions, and many more.

Here is a recent experience many anti-OSS types and CIO's aught to read that supports this.

Project A, open source, hires consultants and they don't work out. Fire consultants, with source get someone who can work out. No 0 day business conflicts.

Project B, buys a closed source commercial product, they raised the price over 2000 percent 2 years in a row! (Company got bought out). Now everyone is scrambling on what to do as the time bombed licence expires December 31st and that date isn't moving without some serious cash.

Moral, if you have the source and the rights to use it you are one hell of a lot better off and always have palatable options.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[yankpop]

I stand corrected. I did misread you, although I prefer to think that it was because the initial post might have been clearer, rather than my aspirations to zealot-hood. I'll have to think about this some more, but the idea that anything that is government funded should be released public domain does make sense.

Cheers,

yp.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[symbolic]

In my opinion proprietary is bad and the GPL is bad, only completely unencombered government research is good.

There is no reason the GPL is bad. It allows far MORE freedom than a proprietary EULA. Given the choice, if anything, GPL is far LESS bad than proprietary.

Re:There is an interesting question here

[jZnat]

Aren't "libre" and "gratis" both latin?

Re:There is an interesting question here

[InsaneGeek]

Nice way to dodge the argument and completely ignore the most critical part of it, good job way to go!

Having a little more freedom != good, having more freedom under house arrest is better than prison, but wouldn't not be under any restrictions at all be the best? Since you tried to dodge it, let me say it again: the GPL is a bad to release under for government funded research, only completely unencombered license is good. Less bad != good.

Is it wrong?

[bogaboga]

Elliott, who is on the voting committee, waited until the last minute and tried to have the report changed after a public vote.

Is it wrong? I do not think so. Let someone convince a slashdotter that this MIcrosoft Executuve was wrong in her actions. I am waiting.

Re:Is it wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

define wrong in this context, first.

Re:Is it wrong?

[TomTraynor]

From my view it is wrong. They presented something for a public vote and the public will say yay/nay to the wording. She doesn't like the wording and wants to change it only after a vote. If it was that critical why didn't she present the alternate wording before the vote? In my not so humble opinion once the group votes she has to live with the results unless she brings forward the new wording to the group to vote on again.

Yes

[Alioth]

Judging by Microsofts >90% market share on desktop operating systems and office suites, I would say that yes - Microsoft can argue against "open" and win, and has been winning for years, and is likely to continue winning against "open" for decades to come.

Re:Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

"Judging by Microsofts >90% market share..."

By that logic, McDonalds has the best hamburgers in the world! And they are healthy for you too! The masses will consume junk. Digitally too.

Re:Yes

[jejones]

Non sequitur. They are (currently) winning, but that doesn't say anything about how. I think leveraging a monopoly had more to do with it than argument.

Re:Yes

[Alioth]

I didn't mention the word "best" (although arguably, MS Office is currently the best office package).

Re:[OT] Google unreachable??

[Anonymous Coward]

Its fine. And your retarted.

It's fine. And you're retarded.

There. All better.

Check out MICROSOFT's wrongdoing

[applix7]

It's here: http://malfy.org/

Uninformed Submitter

[Bob9113]

Although she does have a point that 'open source' is a development model,

No she doesn't. Not it is not. It is a collection of software licenses.

Re:Uninformed Submitter

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite. There are open source licenses, and there is open source development. Open source development is a generic term that simply means the source is available for others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software_ development_method

Will the report have any impact either way?

[Infonaut]

We're talking about government and academia, two worlds that produce mountains of papers and reports each year. Does anyone know if these reports from the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education are ever given any attention by the leaders of colleges and universities?

Re:Will the report have any impact either way?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know if these reports from the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education are ever given any attention by the leaders of colleges and universities?

Well, I'm guessing that infonaut (person quoted above) doesn't read them. If he did, he might notice that the ex-president of MIT and the ex-president of the University of Michigan were commissioners active in this debate.

Re:Will the report have any impact either way?

[tinkerghost]

Having writen a few grants, yes they are. If your grant request references this type of document & it's relevant, then you get brownie points on the scoring. All other things being equal, the grant that is trying to impliment a new policy/vision that's been officially endorsed will win - unless the reviewer is opposed to the notion of the grant of course :)

Re:Will the report have any impact either way?

[Infonaut]

he might notice that the ex-president of MIT and the ex-president of the University of Michigan were commissioners active in this debate.

Who was involved in the debate doesn't tell me anything about whether it will be listened to or not.

The 9/11 Commission involved a lot of very important people and did meticulous work, but was in the main ignored by the US government. Blue ribbon panels and commissions get igored all the time.

So can you tell me from the prior record of these reports whether they have any actual impact, or do you not really know?

Re:Will the report have any impact either way?

[Infonaut]

Thanks, that helps. So there are no concrete requirements, but these reports can be used as a point of reference for grant applicants. It sounds like the conclusions of one of these reports don't necessarily serve as the framework for future development, but they do serve as philosophical guideposts.

Fine, let MS object

[MECC]

Gerri Elliott, corporate vice president at Microsoft's Worldwide Public Sector division, sent an e-mail message to fellow commissioners Friday evening saying that she "vigorously" objected to a paragraph in which the panel embraced and encouraged the development of open source software and open content projects in higher education.

Why does anyone take an MS VP 'opinion' over those of people actually working in higher education. Why is anyone even listening to her? What does she have to do with the process at all? What's her background in higher education? Why is MS a part of such a discussion anyway? Why would anyone not think that the only reason MS is involved is to find ways to extort more money out of higher education?

Elliott, though. She thanked Duderdstadt for his suggestion but objected to his proposed inclusion of "open source" ("it's a method of coding software, and one of several available, period") and "open content" (a "term which can mean different things and enter us into some copyright debate"). She suggested language that struck those phrases.

It's worth pointing out that the Internet itself is the result of an OPEN collaboration, not entirely unlike OSS, which is also an open collaboration. The right thing to do would be to let her "never sign" the report, and thank her for her 'input'.

Re:Fine, let MS object

[Anonymous Coward]

But Dosen't everyone know that Bill Gate singlehandely invented the internet ?

Only Joking...

But serioulsy, M$ is never slow to let a little Lie get in their quest to take over the world.

Re:Fine, let MS object

[jambarama]

You know what makes me mad? When big firms seem to find it more profitable to run a PR campaign, buy a politician, or influence a debate, than actually make a better product. This isn't just Microsoft, but I hate to see corporations competing on anything other than services/products. When they run a PR campaign (different from advertising), buy a law, or weigh in on a debate--and if they are successful--they are distracting from the real competition in the marketplace over goods and services. Call it "sales diversion" or something.

I know Microsoft has a gazillion talented engineers, but I can't help but feel that if they worried more about Vista, and not about an academic/government debate (or the Mass. open doc format, or whatever else they are in the news for), we might have a workable Vista beta, or *gasp* Vista might have been closer to on time.

Re:Fine, let MS object

[cvd6262]

I'm working on a project with a committee from the National Academies. Specifically, we're evaluating a facet of education (can't say too much, NDA etc.), but we still have a representative from Shell Oil in the bunch, along with several "independent consultants." That's just the way it works.

Now, I believe, every single one of them is qualified to be there, but I have doubts about potential biases. It could be the same with this Elliot - She could be qualified, but be representing MS rather than the nation at large.

But also, notice the principle objectors to the new language came from places like MIT, who have invested a lot in "open*". That's a bias too.

Another thing: It is not surprising that Elliot claims the language just slipped by her. She said, "It was certainly never brought up in any of the meetings," even though she voted for the draft as is. The first time I consulted on a governement project, I was so nervous, I read all of the material in the briefing book before the meeting. (I read some of the papers twice.) When I got to the meeting, I found that most of the participants (who were well above my pay grade) hadn't done more than read the table of contents. They asked questions that would have been answered by even a cursory reading.

It's like in Fahrenheit 911 when the senator says, "Son, we don't actually read the laws we vote on."

So, it's perfectly reasonable that Elliot voted with having totally read the draft, and then had to practically admit to it when it came out that her bosses were rightfully not satisfied with it.

Re:Fine, let MS object

[tinkerghost]

So, it's perfectly reasonable that Elliot voted with[out] having totally read the draft, and then had to practically admit to it when it came out that her bosses were rightfully not satisfied with it.

FTFA, she was traveling during the meeting & was unable to attend via video-conference. She 'did not have a change to fully read the document until recently'. Her vote was via proxy with one of the other members. So no, she didn't read it before hand, and the person she proxied her vote to, didn't have her bias against open source.

Re:Fine, let MS object

[MECC]

But also, notice the principle objectors to the new language came from places like MIT, who have invested a lot in "open*". That's a bias too.

On the one hand, you have bias towards sharing information, supporting the involvement of a community of professionals and related engineers in projects, and open collaboration. On the other hand, with MS, you have bias in the other direction.

Of course there's bias on both sides. Pick the one you think will help education.

Re:[OT] Google unreachable??

[solevita]

It's fine and you're retarded.

Let's not forget how to start a sentence.

Glad to hear...

[emil10001]

that open-source is being reccommended to Higher Ed. However, it seems that the availability of source code would have limited use to most college students. For Engineers, Comp Sci, and other technical students that would have both the interest and ability to look at and work with the source code, that's a great thing to be exposed to. But, I don't really see the bennefit for say, business students (not that I'm saying that business students can't program). But, for majors like Comp Sci and Engineering, the source could be a useful too to a good number of students.

I think that being exposed to the different platforms at the Higher Ed level is important though, as you don't know what platform you are going to be working with out in the workforce, and it also allows you to make a more informed desicion about which you'll use personally.

So, is there an educational bennefit to pushing open source software across the board? Or should it be targeted to technical students who could use the extra information (and possibly the exposure to new environments)?

Billy Boy

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is why Bill Gates is represented as a Borg on Slashdot. When mid-level employees such as these are willing to go so out of their way to fight open source it's obvious the guys on top are pressuring them to do so. A lot of people think I'm strange for refusing to purchase any Microsoft product - even mice, Xboxes, cheap PCs running Windows, ect. I just don't want to contribute to a company whose goal is to control all software standards. They want every software technology - media, game development, networking, encoding, advertising, search, internet browsing, office software, ect. ect. to all be under their control. Then they can halt development and move on to their next project. I buy my stuff from companies which are financially committed to their products. When a company relies on a product for their bottom line they tend to care more about it. Employees at Microsoft know they have an infinite amount of money and no matter how half assed their products, people will buy them because the marketing people will sqaush any competition by making them look insecure next to the big bad Microsoft. Look what's happening to Sony right now. They've created what should be every nerd's dream - a new, complex processor, Linux, a killer GPU, free online service, and many many ports, HD so internet text can be read on T.V., and all the tradtional Playstation games - but everyone seems to think that Sony's out of touch with gamer. It's because Microsoft has people like Gerri Elliot who will do anything and everything to stifle competition. Why do you think Joe Shmoe thinks that there's no Mac software? In America, people respect money. Bill Gates is known as the richest, most powerful man in the world. Everyone assumes their competition is doomed to failure and doesn't buy because they're afraid M$ will just dominate the market anyway. Open source intitiatives like the one in the featured article are a way around this. We need to take note when Microsoft tries to cut off open source at a political level.

Is this so hard to believe?

[couch_potato]

I am not shocked. Of course a company would want to protect its interests, and for Microsoft that means maintaining the status quo of expensive, proprietary software. Naturally, I didn't read the article, but if they used underhanded or even (gasp!) illegal tactics, I wouldn't be surprised. This is Microsoft we're talking about, after all.

Cool links.

Way to go, Dude!

[TopShelf]

But let's give it up for a fine effort by James Duderstadt, a past President of the University of Michigan, and a leader in the realm of applying developing technology to higher education.

Here are the final two paragraphs of the article:

Monday morning, Miller said the commission would go with Duderstadt's compromise language, which he called "an improvement in the draft" that "does not require and will not be put to a vote."

Later that morning, Elliott gave in, writing: "I support Jim's paragraph as well."

Re:Way to go, Dude!

[rs232]

But let's give it up for a fine effort by James Duderstadt ..

What are you on , Dude

Miller said the commission would go with Duderstadt's compromise language .. that "does not require and will not be put to a vote."

Let me spell it out, Elliott waited until the document was finalized precisely because she didn't want it going to a vote. In the process showing contempt for due process and her fellow commisioners.

Re:Way to go, Dude!

[TopShelf]

Let me spell it out, Elliott waited until the document was finalized precisely because she didn't want it going to a vote. In the process showing contempt for due process and her fellow commisioners.

Let me spell this out: you have no idea what Elliott's intentions were, you're just voicing your suspicions. Her response to the timing of response was as follows...

And to Vedder's comments on her tardy response to the commission's report -- she was traveling during the August 10 meeting, and did not join via teleconference as did several other panel members, including Robert Zemsky from Singapore -- Elliott said in her e-mail reply that she was "completely offended by this personal attack." "This has nothing to do with my 'corporate responsibilities,' and [Miller] was well aware of my availability and access in August." (In Thursday's interview, she added that she had given Miller her proxy at the August 10 meeting based on her sense of the report at the "macro" level, but had not had a chance to review the final document until recently.)

This stuff happens. Huge documents with implications lurking in all corners, of which this particular issue was a mere speck. Consider some of the other contentious issues:

a national database of student academic records, the call for consolidating the number of federal financial aid programs, and its inclination to push a common yardstick for all institutions in measuring student learning.

Those are Big Time issues in comparison. It's not surprising that Elliott would have missed the reference to open source.

Re:Way to go, Dude!

[blueskies]

Those are Big Time issues in comparison. It's not surprising that Elliott would have missed the reference to open source.

What, like MS doesn't provide custom searches for her that alerts her to any mention of open source, linux, gpl, etc in any document that she reads?

Or is the technology being released the same time Vista is?

Attempt?

[someone1234]

From what I learned, it wasn't just an attempt. They actually managed it.

This looks like a stupid overreaction.

[hey!]

The commission encourages the creation of incentives to promote the development of open-source and open-content projects [emphasis mine] at universities and colleges across the United States, enabling the open sharing of educational materials from a variety of institutions, disciplines, and educational perspectives.

So, it doesn't look to me like this bears on Microsoft's products very much at all. They aren't saying ditch MS Office for Open Office, or ditch Windows for Linux. They aren't saying use open standard formats instead of closed proprietary ones. They aren't even saying you should prefer open source software development tools to proprietary ones.

If I read correctly, what they're saying is that people should develop new courseware and let other people use and improve it. Which is pretty much the way scholarship works. The job of the scholar, as we now understand it, is to innovate. You can't expect every instructor to teach the same topic the same way, much less institutions. Scholars have to use other scholar's work and have to let their others use their work. The only rule is to give credit where credit is due. Scholars who don't let others take their work and improve on it, or tailor to their own purposes, might as well move to a cave at the top of a distant mountain. Sages they may be, but scholars they are not.

This looks to me likea pointless, self inflicted PR wound.

Re:This looks like a stupid overreaction.

[Ksisanth]

To me the change appears to emphasize something a bit different, from "encourag[ing] the creation of incentives to promote the development of open-source and open-content projects" to "the creation of incentives to promote the development of information-technology-based collaborative tools and capabilities . . . . Both commercial development and new collaborative paradigms such as open source . . . ."

Maybe that's their problem, the promotion of anything other than commercial development?

Okey-Dokey

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's have the report changed to "free (as in freedom) software". Will Microsoft, the DRM oppressor object to the promotion of freedom?

Am I the only one

[Anonymous Coward]

angry at the attempt/ability to change a document _after_ it's been voted on? Can I make a case for misdemeanor treason?

And by doing so..

[Plutonite]

has made the issue more publicized, worsening the MS position. While this will not affect J.Doe Consumer, govmint agencies should be intrigued.

MS not 90% in schools

[cwgmpls]

MS market share in colleges and universities is significantly less than 90%. In fact, those are traditional domains of unix and open-source development. This is nothing more than typical MS behavior to gain market share through coercive, monopolistic marketing practices rather than by providing better value.

Re:MS not 90% in schools

[BlueCodeWarrior]

I know that I personally handed out about 50 Ubuntu CDs with a small printed 'newbie's guide' that my club and I made up at the freshman activities fair last week. 50 is only a teeny tiny portion of the total students, but that's a possible 50 more on 'our' side.

I wasn't too pumped when I first heard about Ubuntu, but now I love it. I've used it (well, Kubuntu, tecnhically) to get two people to wipe thier HDs and run only Linux on thier computers. After two days, one of them's never using a Microsoft product again.

Re:MS not 90% in schools

[Anonymous Coward]

I wasn't too pumped when I first heard about Ubuntu, but now I love it. I've used it (well, Kubuntu, tecnhically) to get two people to wipe thier HDs and run only Linux on thier computers. After two days, one of them's never using a Microsoft product again.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You lose, Linux zealot.

Re:[OT] Google unreachable??

[msuarezalvarez]

That period was intended, clearly. And correct.

I imagine you've never read Finnegans Wake...

no arguement

[mseidl]

MS: Open source sucks!
People: Why?
MS: Uh, because, it just does.
People: Oh, ok. Thats neat.

Yeah, this is obviously an open and shut case.

There are some amazing closed source products. None of which are produced by MS. There are also amazing open source projects.
So?

Embracing F/OSS imho, is good. I love the community aspect. And, when done right can be worth while.

Slamming Microsoft

[Nom du Keyboard]

This is clearly a PC (Politically Correct, not Personal Computer) attempt at slamming Microsoft by creating public outrage wherever possible. Now MS may deserve to be slammed over this. I'm only pointing out the tactic used here of attempting to stir up public pressure through exposure on Slashdot of an activity that outranged the submitter.

Re: Slamming Microsoft

[rs232]

This is clearly a PC (Politically Correct, not Personal Computer) attempt at slamming Microsoft by creating public outrage wherever possible. Now MS may deserve to be slammed over this.

No, this is clearly yet another attempt by MS to get a reversal is a democratically arrived at decision by a body on which it has a board member. Similar to what happened in Massachusetts when MS retrospectivly tried to get a reversal in the decision to move to the Open Document Format despite having a seat on the standards body.

I also find it disengenous that she claimed no prior knowlege of the paragraph. Sho sits on the board. She must read the reports. By doing it after the discussion is closed they figure it'll be difficult to undo their reversal.

I'm only pointing out the tactic used here of attempting to stir up public pressure through exposure on Slashdot of an activity that outranged the submitter.

In related news, Mr. Tony Soprano today slammed the media for attempting to stir up public pressure through exposure of his extortion racket .. er banking interests, by some outraged do-gooder ...

"The more you resist...

[dave562]

...something, the stronger it will become." I was originally presented with that concept through NLP in the frame of "not being able to not think about something." I think that Microsoft is doing themselves a HUGE disservice by trying to quash open source at all costs. The more effort they put into trying to make it go away, the more people are going to begin to wonder what the big deal is all about. The more people wonder about what the big deal is all about, the more people are going to look at OSS and all the OSS propoganda and start to believe, "Gee, no wonder MS is trying to make this go away. OSS can do everything Microsoft can do for us, only cheaper!"

If Microsoft had any brains, they'd point out where their products are superior to the open source offerings. Unfortunately for them, I don't think that they have many talking points on that platform. An example of that was seen with the recent Massachusetts education fiasco where all they could come up with is, "OSS doesn't support access for people with disabilities."

Hasn't Microsoft already won?

[mcmonkey]

I'd say they've already lost.

MS may be the overwhelming force (for now) in desptop OS, office suites, and web browsers, but we will never again see a market without a significant number of people choosing software that is open, in terms of community-based developement, and free, in terms of personal access to view and modify source code.

Bag the cat is out of.

Genie out of the bottle is.

Horses gone, barn door open.

translation

[WeAreAllDoomed]

'Later that morning, [Gerri] Elliott [of Microsoft] gave in, writing: "I support Jim's paragraph as well."'

should read:

'Later that morning, [Gerri] Elliott [of Microsoft] gave in, writing: "I will back down on this now, since it's more damaging to Microsoft to awaken the slumbering Higher Ed sector with a controversy than to let this go into a report that few decision-makers will pay attention to anyway."'

games Ballmer plays

[falconwolf]

I'm surprised there isn't a flash game where you are Steve Ballmer throwing chairs at RMS, Linus, Jobs, etc.

Great idea. I think I'll write the game in flash. If only I knew flash. Maybe Java?

Falcon

Re:games Ballmer plays

[HeroreV]

Write it using JavaScript, the HTML canvas element, and SVG. Just because.

copyrigths and patents in freemarkets

[falconwolf]

A free market without copyright monopoly* for software, closed and open competing fairly...

Actually Adam Smith, the father of freemarket capitalism, was against copyrights and patents, believing the monopolies thus granted were a threat to freemarkets. He believed if someone could improve or produce and sale cheaper a product he should be able to.

Falcon

Re:[OT] Google unreachable??

[spun]

Has anyone read Finnegan's Wake? Or do they all just get about four pages into it, go into seizures and then imagine they've read it when they come to? Maybe that's just me...

corporate welfare

[falconwolf]

Should I just bend over now, or can I wait until there is a Department of Corporate Wellfare?

What, and make it easier to see who collects that welfare? As it is now you have to hire an army of accountants to pore over the accounts of dozens if not hundreds of agencies, authorities, departments, and offices to see who gets what corporate welfare. And you want to make it easy?

Falcon

Bogus

[Eric Damron]

Ah yes, the ever present and bogus "Things Will Never Change" argument.

Things are beginning to change and that change is accelerating. Like it or not "Open" is coming. The advantages are too great to be ignored.

Re:Bogus

[Alioth]

Some things change easily, and some don't. The disappearance of Microsoft's monopoly is something that will be very hard to change, and probably won't for decades - and when it does, there's a good probability that something *not* open will replace it, too.

The Windows+Office hegemony is only likely to change if people owning PCs goes out of favour AND Microsoft doesn't gain dominance on whatever the replacement is.

Elliot

[falconwolf]

She said, "It was certainly never brought up in any of the meetings," even though she voted for the draft as is.

If it was in the draft then it was her resposibility to bring it up in a meeting. It was also her resposibility to resign from the group if she didn't have the tyme to read drafts or participate. That is something that really bothers me about many bills congress approves. Many of them are so long they discourage congress from reading them. Of course that is how they want it, that way they can say they didn't read the whole thing. Better stop there before I get long winded and go off topic.

Falcon

Re:[OT] Google unreachable??

[hotair]

It's fine, and you're retarded.

Avoid run on sentences.

proxy and bias

[falconwolf]

FTFA, she was traveling during the meeting & was unable to attend via video-conference. She 'did not have a change to fully read the document until recently'. Her vote was via proxy with one of the other members. So no, she didn't read it before hand, and the person she proxied her vote to, didn't have her bias against open source.

I didn't see where it said who her proxy was so I don't know if s/he had a bias or not. Where did you get your info the proxy didn't have a bias?

Falcon

Re:proxy and bias

[tinkerghost]

12th paragraph:

And to Vedders comments on her tardy response to the commissions report she was traveling during the August 10 meeting, and did not join via teleconference as did several other panel members, including Robert Zemsky from Singapore Elliott said in her e-mail reply that she was completely offended by this personal attack. This has nothing to do with my corporate responsibilities, and [Miller] was well aware of my availability and access in August. (In Thursdays interview, she added that she had given Miller her proxy[em mine] at the August 10 meeting based on her sense of the report at the macro level, but had not had a chance to review the final document until recently.)

I didn't say the proxy didn't have a bias - just not her (Vedder's) bias.

Wasted money

[mjjw]

I live in the UK and I for one know that I HATE seeing my tax money being spent on M$ Windows in local government and in schools when they could be using Linux for free.

Re:Wasted money

[LinuxIsRetarded]

I live in the UK and I for one know that I HATE seeing my tax money being spent on M$ Windows in local government and in schools when they could be using Linux for free.

If your local governments and schools were to switch to Linux, how do you think the installation, administration, maintenance, and support would be funded? Sure the software itself might be free, but the support most certainly is not. To say that Linux is "free" for use in an organization is simply not true.

Re:Wasted money

[Anonymous Coward]

and apparently you seem to think support for Microsoft Products is free. the cost of support to companies is tied into the cost of their volume licensing fees and only for so long, after which companies must either renew their contract for support or purchse it "ala carte" over the phone at (last i heard) a $350USD charge to the company credit card. something you Microsoft JunkiesTM seem to forget.

yes, to support F/OSS solutions costs money, why should there be an additional cost on top of it for the base operating system?

let's take a moment to debunk some of the myths that get spewed forth from the mouths of those who seem to think "the world runs on Windows" shall we?

1. Companies won't use F/OSS because if something goes wrong who do you sue? - okay great i can understand that. but if you read the Almighty Microsoft EULA(you know, that thing you're "supposed" to read BEFORE pressing the F8 key to accept it but instead you just TLDR it and hit the F8 key to be done with it and move on. i'm quite sure if you bothered to pour through it, Microsoft disclaims any responsibility whatsoever for any kind of damage to systems or data that may or may not have been caused by a Microsoft Product, and, in the event that they do take any responsibility, i think they pay $5USD tops(been awhile since i looked into it but that's what i remember turning up). the Almighty EULA even states that you use the product at your own risk and that the product is not fit for any purpose, even the purpose they market it as being fit to serve.

2. (this is some of my instructors' favorite Bovine Byproduct Fertilizer to spread around)Companies like to own things. they know when they purchase a copy of Windows, they own it. - BRRR! i'm sorry, that's incorrect. Johnny, tell 'em what wonderful consolation prizes we have for 'em! again, going back to the Almighty Microsoft EULA, we find that we don't actually "own" something we paid for, we're merely renting permission to use the Holy Microsoft ProductTM, of which Microsoft has so graciously provided to you at a "modest" fee. with F/OSS, not only do i get a great value for what it costs me(my time to download it, my time to tinker with it(AND maintain control of MY property) i am rewarded with stability and flexibilty to use my systems as i see fit instead of being dictated to and locked in by DRM solutions), i also have ownership of the software. it's given to me. just like that. and i can give it to others as long as i do so within the guidelines of the accompanied licenses(GPL, Mozilla, BSD, etc). if i gave a copy of any Holy Microsoft Product, suddenly i'm a dirty pirate and we all know what happens to dirty pirates. arrr! ye'll walk the plank far vialatin me EULA ye landlubbin barnacle sucker.
3. there's just nowhere to get good support for F/OSS products. again, bullshit. i can find a plethora of answers on how to fix something with a F/OSS product thru google, or if need be, the project's homepage/website. on the opposite end of the spectrum, i'm wasting my freetime at home trying to figure out how to extract a client's license key out of his restore point hive files since the man left his copy of win xp in another state and isn't due to go back there for another couple of months, but needs his machine now and his hard drive is on the fritz and dying. we managed to rescue 95% of his data and yet, the man and myself both are hindered by Microsoft's paranoia of those dirty pirates. and everything i seem to pull up so far for getting the license key from hive files or registry entries requires that the utility be run on a live windows xp system. if any of you know how i can extract this man's key please share.F/OSS projects don't have a compelling need to obfuscate important system information and hinder my use of my systems or hinder my job as a technician. i use linux everyday in my job to achieve 99% of the tasks i need to perform at my occupation. and i work on 100% Microsoft systems that our customers bring us for various Microsoft related shortcomings. Virus in

Re:Wasted money

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you drunk? I'm not trying to poke fun, but your post was absolutely nonsensical. Aside from the spelling errors, poor grammar, and lack of punctuation, your post was filled with pure ignorant Linux fanboy rhetoric along with general misstatements.

I love Linux and think it's a viable alternative to Windows, but you do the Linux community harm with idiotic posts like this.

Re:Wasted money

[Anonymous Coward]

actually no i'm not drunk. this is what i deal with on a weekly basis. anecdotal evidence? possibly. do i see linux as a viable alternative to windows on the desktop now for joe schmoe? hardly.

but for these Microsoft Junkies to push this idea that support for F/OSS costs money, while at the opposite end of the spectrum Microsoft Support is somehow free or low cost is a load of bullshit and i hardly see you correcting my "nonsensical statements" to prove them to the contrary. i have to suppprt Windows systems almost 5 days a week. And i see no rerason for MS to make things so fucking hard for me to do my job to help my clients get back on their computing feet as quickly as possible except in that doing so increases their profits.

if you really want to see my zealotry and fanboyism then perhaps you ahould get me started on NetBSD wise ass. for me linux is a great desktop system, but i really think it still has it's own security issues, like unnecessary services after a default install that probably aren't needed. i much rather prefer NetBSDs model of blacklist everything and let the user decide which services to install and enable. and personally, on /., i don't give a fuck about my grammar i display, since it's apparently on par with everyone else's grammar around here jackass. i wasn't fucking aware that /. was a fucking research paper.

Re:Wasted money

[Anonymous Coward]

and if all you can bitch about is my intentional misspelling of thru or my unintentional misspelling of fenagle, i can only suggest you either put up or shut the fuck up.

Tinfoil time

[Lonewolf666]

The problem with arranging lots of hits is that you will get caught sooner or later.
Unless you are the government and can squash the investigations - and I guess not even Microsoft has that kind of clout.

Wow

[MrCopilot]

Microsoft attempts to quash OSS Reccomendations.

Hunh, Thanks for that shocking news. Who'd have thought.

SVG

[falconwolf]

I've been looking for a good book on SVG, as well as graphics software for it. I just wonder how well it works with photographs.

Falcon

Re:SVG

[Anonymous Coward]

I just wonder how well it works with photographs.

It doesn't, but software such as Inkscape can do a 'fair enough' job of tracing them to a recognisable vector image.

MS is the best.

[rice_burners_suck]

Linux cannot do anything once it boots up. It just says: login. Whatever you type, it says: password. Then whatever you type, it just goes back to saying login again.

Windows is much better. When it starts up, you get glossy graphics with beautiful windows. The start menu is just one click away. It's so easy to use. Not like this login/password nonsense of Linux. In fact, any user can go up to your Windows computer and do whatever he wants.

Dirty Tricks [tm]

[stock]

I wonder who was first to outroll a official Dirty Tricks [tm] department, the CIA or Microsoft..

"CIA Handbook Of Dirty Tricks [Vol #1]"

Robert

A definition

[Mateo_LeFou]

I think "winning" here might just mean: preventing governments all over the world from sending half of their IT budget to Redmond as pure profit, in exchange for the privilege of ... um... sending half their IT budget to Redmond.

shoulda said "software budget" of course...

[Mateo_LeFou]

...and even that's just an estimate. In a bad mood today.

That's Quite the Brain-Buster

[finiteSet]

It's funny how this was modded "Troll", while the retard who doesn't have a handle on the English language is modded "Interesting." I guess that's what is to be expected from a bunch of basement-dwelling Linux fanboys.

Yeah... however could that have come about? *tapping finger to forehead, mutters "think ... think"* Hmm, sorry, I'm stumped.

Flying chairs!

[Anonymous Coward]

The new Flying Toaster!

ms newspeak plusgood

[ClamIAm]

The "compromise" paragraph really kind of pisses me off. It asserts that "commercial" software development is somehow distinct from "open source", when this is obviously not the case. I guess the word proprietary probably wouldn't fly.

she had given Miller her proxy

[falconwolf]

Ok, I missed it. Thanks.

Falcon

Crap argument

[cheros]

Here's a simple equation for you:

1 desktop = 1x hardware + 1x software suite + 1x share of bespoke integration code + 1x support costs.

With Linux (say, Ubuntu), you can scrap the "1x software" expense, and share the "1x share of bespoke integration code" over a larger audience.

And that's without touching matters like hardware refresh cycles (about 50% of an MS driven cycle), deployment costs (terminal based systems, you can set up a whole classroom in one (1) hour, risk management (ever heard of a computer virus?), license management (bye bye FAST revenue model).

Oh, and support costs are way down as well. The whole Spanish Extremedura thing is managed by a handful of techs (I think 10 or so by now).

So, you can spin it anyway you want - MS /IS/ an exceptional waste of money. Even Tony Blair can't spin that one..

There is, of course, the risk that, with so much money spent on MS software, maths education hasn't been quite up to scratch, though, so maybe this isn't that clear to all.

Re:Crap argument

[LinuxIsRetarded]

1 desktop = 1x hardware + 1x software suite + 1x share of bespoke integration code + 1x support costs.

With Microsoft, there is no such bespoke integration code. As far as the software suite goes, with volume licensing, customers can get the latest OS and Office for less than $100 (IIRC it can be less than $70). For smaller organizations, Microsoft even offers the "Action Pack" (I know it's a horrible name) that includes 10 licenses for XP, Server 2003, Office 2003, and a boat load of other software for $250. And considering the hardware support for Windows far exceeds that of any Linux distribution, the hardware becomes much cheaper, as the acquisition time does not include matching up hardware with an OS flavor.

And that's without touching matters like hardware refresh cycles (about 50% of an MS driven cycle)

Since when does an installation of Windows require a hardware refresh? In all my experience, I've never witnessed a service pack or a patch for any version of Windows that required new hardware. Sure, if you want to upgrade to a later OS, you might need a faster CPU, more memory, and more disk space to take advantage of the new features, but that same issue spans all platforms.

deployment costs (terminal based systems, you can set up a whole classroom in one (1) hour

It's even easier with Windows- you can deploy software using group policy or more advanced tools such as SMS, plus each Windows installation allows for remote administrative terminal access.

risk management (ever heard of a computer virus?)

Yes, I have:

• Linux.Plupi
• Lion Worm
• Linux.Vit.4096
• Ramen
• Siilov
• etc.

with so much money spent on MS software, maths education hasn't been quite up to scratch

Which software manufacturer is to blame for poor grammar?

Re:Crap argument

[cheros]

OK, this will probably be an endeless debate :-).

With Microsoft, there is no such bespoke integration code.

There is always some glue code required to make things work for a company, unless IT drives the business (a very, very bad way to do things but not uncommon, sadly). Simple stuff like logon and backup scripts, code management, that monthly timesheet spreadsheet - it's often hidden effort until you try and upgrade or migrate a company. Try doing any large scale migration without investigating that and you'll pay dearly. But let's leave it out - it's equal for both platforms.

with volume licensing, customers can get the latest OS and Office for less than $100 (IIRC it can be less than $70). For smaller organizations, Microsoft even offers the "Action Pack" (I know it's a horrible name) that includes 10 licenses for XP, Server 2003, Office 2003, and a boat load of other software for $250.

$70 per unit at volume is still more expensive than free last time I checked :-) And that discount won't be given under a 1000 units or so, so it's a straight $70k.

the hardware support for Windows far exceeds that of any Linux distribution, the hardware becomes much cheaper, as the acquisition time does not include matching up hardware with an OS flavor

I suggest you download a copy of Ubuntu and actually try it. I agree that MS has been fighting hard to retain that stranglehold, but it seems that hardware vendors start to realise the problem they're creating for themselves: being blackmailed and thus have one market, being open and have two.

Here's another -maintenance related- exercise for you: replace the motherboard in a system (on a corporate level, replace the machine and try to use your one build on another system when the box malfunctions). Welcome to driver hell, even appearing when the supplier has upgraded a couple of chips on their motherboard in an identical system. That's one of the things I've enjoyed with Linux over the years, all the way from Worries for Workgroups upwards - rip-n-replace. In short, "far" is overstated, and every basic Dell will spin up straightaway from a live CD.

There's another implicit advantage to this hardware freedom: it makes universal live CDs easier to construct - one CD can boot all sorts of hardware. I've worked on enough Windows systems that had a damaged NTFS structure to know just what a lifesaver that is. Letting NTFS 'repair' the disk when it has it's tables in a mess is the best data destruction method I've come across (short of using a magnet on the platters), using a Linux boot disk and getting hold of the data Windows doesn't see anymore alone is worth the effort investigating Linux. And with any Linux distro having a journalling file system by default it's actually hard to zap data by power down (less NEED for full power resets helps as well, of course, but that is thankfully becoming less and less needed).

Since when does an installation of Windows require a hardware refresh?

LOL.. Ever since MS released new hardware specs with every new version of Windows. And we're not talking about patches, I have yet to see any OS that requires a hardware swap for a patch..

[..] Sure, if you want to upgrade to a later OS, you might need a faster CPU, more memory, and more disk space to take advantage of the new features, but that same issue spans all platforms.

That is complete baloney. I've installed proper, workable systems on machines that could no longer support Windows because the "new" version had come up with new and innovative ways of wasting CPU power. As a matter of fact, it's an excellent way of recycling machines (another factor to consider in a refresh cycle). You now need more computing power than was used to send a man to the moon to run a simple word processor - where is all that going? Ah, yes, AV checking, spyware double checks, DRM management, phone-home facilities (i.e. illegal data taps) - none of it

Re:Crap argument

[LinuxIsRetarded]

There is always some glue code required to make things work for a company, unless IT drives the business (a very, very bad way to do things but not uncommon, sadly). Simple stuff like logon and backup scripts, code management, that monthly timesheet spreadsheet - it's often hidden effort until you try and upgrade or migrate a company. Try doing any large scale migration without investigating that and you'll pay dearly. But let's leave it out - it's equal for both platforms.

Face it, if you stick entirely with Microsoft products, there is no such glue code. Windows Server (including IIS, MSMQ, AD), XP, Office, Sharepoint, Exchange Server, SQL Server, .NET, BizTalk Server all work flawlessly without needing a full time IT staff. To piece together a similar system on a Linux platform requires significantly more time and effort (which means more money).

$70 per unit at volume is still more expensive than free last time I checked :-) And that discount won't be given under a 1000 units or so, so it's a straight $70k.

That price, of course, includes support. Where have you figured in vendor support in your calculations?

I suggest you download a copy of Ubuntu and actually try it.

I have, and it refused to recognize my wireless card. I could download ndis wrapper and follow a lengthy set of instructions (which include recompiling) the kernel, but again, this is time and money.

That is complete baloney. I've installed proper, workable systems on machines that could no longer support Windows because the "new" version had come up with new and innovative ways of wasting CPU power. As a matter of fact, it's an excellent way of recycling machines (another factor to consider in a refresh cycle). You now need more computing power than was used to send a man to the moon to run a simple word processor - where is all that going?

Your original quote included purchasing new hardware, and then you stated you need to factor in hardware refresh costs for Microsoft platforms. Now you're changing your story as you go. Oh, and for some reason, I can't get Ubuntu and OpenOffice to run on my old PIII 266MHz machine with 32MB RAM.

phone-home facilities (i.e. illegal data taps) - none of it contributing to my bottom line and risking my confidential data. It's a rather well documented Windows issue.

Have you ever considered created limited user accounts? It's a rather well documented best practice for Windows that mitigates this risk no differently than with Linux, Unix, or OS X.

I'd still choose Linux because simple math dictates that it will present a better risk profile than Windows as it's not yet a real hacking target.

I'm actually shocked that a Linux fanboy actually made this comment! I think your comrades might stone you for this!

The other risk vector I mitigate is being raided by FAST or cronies because a rogue member of staff installed something unlicensed and then told the FAST to get the reward.

How is this any different than under any other OS? Users running with limited privileges can still download and run programs that don't need to write to protected areas with any operating system.

Oh, and I get free server software, a web server platform that has proven itself in the world already (also for free)

Apache is also available for Windows for free, and Windows Server ships with IIS.

relational databases (did I mention they were free)

MySQL (even though it's a poor product) is also available for Windows for free. SQL Server 2005 (or its predecessor MSDE) is also available for Windows for free.

a couple of programming languages (sorry to bore you, but

Re:Crap argument

[cheros]

Face it, if you stick entirely with Microsoft products, there is no such glue code.

Hmm, you've either been only near greenfield developments or have never been a large scale upgrade or deployment. Why do you think those outsourcing code outfits turn a good buck? Because it all works so well? Ever tried to move from .Net 1.0 to .Net 1.1 - pretty smooth, wasn't it?

[..] all work flawlessly without needing a full time IT staff.

We were talking about dev costs, not staff, but OK, you're alleging all those products work 'flawlessly'. If they're so wonderful I'd like to know why it's almost required to run a separate update network just to keep up with the patching. As an example, it has already been determined that it's simply no longer possible for a home user to keep up with it if they have the misfortune not to have access to broadband (see securityfocus.com). A 56k modem can NOT keep up. And that incessant updating DOES require people: in any sensible organisation any update means (1) evaluation and test (2) small scale rollout (3) mass rollout and update of builds. Or would you suggest we accept the MS updates as-is and get ourselves another Windows Genuine Advantage mess (misnomer of the year IMHO)? I'd really like to see the support model you get for $70/unit if you also have to pay for software..

To piece together a similar system on a Linux platform requires significantly more time and effort (which means more money).

Loong ago. You can get a full CMS based website up, including installation from the bare metal upwards in something of about 30 mins. That's stable, mirrored, patched, firewalled and secured, and with a journalling file system. I don't think you've even installed just Windows by then :-). I could cheat and tell you 20 seconds, but that's a virtualised section of a mainframe and doesn't count :-). BTW, locked user accounts have been the default for years with Linux as it was designed as multi-user, which is also why privilege escalation works so well when it's needed. 'Run as Administrator' is not exactly a smooth process under Windows. You have to put quite a lot of effort in (read: time/effort/cost) to go secure - and it breaks things as quite a lot of code written for Windows still assumes too high privileges. Firewalling is also not exactly new to Linux either, although BSD had it it earlier (that's what Gauntlet used to be based on, a good 10 years ago)

I couldn't help noticing from this post (and others) that we're really dealing with a case of Linux envy here:

1 - you can't get Linux to work on your new hardware

2 - you can't get Linux to work on your old hardware

3 - at some point you seem to need namecalling as a way of expressing your opinion I'm no less a Linux "fanboy" than you are a Microserf (OK, I have my doubts but you do seem to realise the existence of other stuff beyond MS so there is hope)

4 - you seem to consider the "free" offerings from MS a genuine gift to humanity rather than the saturation ploy it really is (UK schools have found that out to their cost)

5 - any idea why people use all that free, non-MS, unsupported stuff to do real work, especially since you stated this earlier: if you stick entirely with Microsoft products, there is no such glue code?
 
Your sole argument in practically all the hardware discussions seems to be that WiFi card you couldn't get to work. I had a Matrox VGA card that flaked in virtually all the Windows versions I used it on, even with driver updates (NT to XP) whereas it was OK in X. I suggest you do what I did: buy a better one :-).

Re:Crap argument

[LinuxIsRetarded]

Why do you think those outsourcing code outfits turn a good buck?

This is no different than with other platforms. Development costs in other countries are simply far less than what they are in the United States. I can hire somewhere near 50 developers in India for the same cost that I can hire just a few developers in the United States. Now, as developing software is quite different than ditch digging, I realize that throwing more people at a job won't necessarily get it done quicker (and might actually do the opposite), but you can see that if I were to hire just a few developers in India I'd save quite a bit of money.

Ever tried to move from .Net 1.0 to .Net 1.1 - pretty smooth, wasn't it?

Yes, I have, and yes, it was. I had one issue with remoting, but adding one attribute to one element in a config file (typeLevelFilter="full", if I remember correctly) resolved the problem (and Microsoft warned of the change). I've also moved from .NET 1.1 to .NET 2.0 without any issue.

I'd like to know why it's almost required to run a separate update network just to keep up with the patching. As an example, it has already been determined that it's simply no longer possible for a home user to keep up with it if they have the misfortune not to have access to broadband (see securityfocus.com). A 56k modem can NOT keep up.

And how is this different than with Linux? The last time I installed Ubuntu, I had to download over 300MB of patches and upgrades!

Or would you suggest we accept the MS updates as-is

For a business user with custom software- of course not, just like I would advise against blindly accepting the myriad of patches for other platforms.

'Run as Administrator' is not exactly a smooth process under Windows. You have to put quite a lot of effort in (read: time/effort/cost) to go secure - and it breaks things as quite a lot of code written for Windows still assumes too high privileges.

I guess I must be special then, because I've never had any significant issues. If I use up to date software by reputable vendors (or if I use well written F/OSS), I don't have a problem. I will admit, though, that "Simpsons Hit and Run" (the single game I have installed on my home machine) did require that I open up write privileges on the program directory (which is simply the fault of lazy or ignorant developers). Aside from that, I run all my office, development (including debugging and deployment), photo and video editing software just fine without any ACL modifications.

1 - you can't get Linux to work on your new hardware
2 - you can't get Linux to work on your old hardware

While that is true, it is certainly not the basis of my argument. My argument is simply that the cost of using Linux in a business is not $0 as the poster I replied to suggested. I've provided ample evidence to justify this. The fact that additional time must be spent researching which hardware is supported for Linux is just one of my many points.

3 - at some point you seem to need namecalling as a way of expressing your opinion I'm no less a Linux "fanboy" than you are a Microserf (OK, I have my doubts but you do seem to realise the existence of other stuff beyond MS so there is hope)

Again, I'll refer you to your previous posts where you attacked the intelligence of anyone who differed with your view (maths education hasn't been quite up to scratch, though, so maybe this isn't that clear to all and I've noticed that few can see reality when it's presented to them). This is the workings of a Linux fanboy- resort to personal attacks when someone presents valid arguments that oppose your beliefs.

5 - any idea why people use all that free