Slashdot Mirror
French Parliament Chooses Ubuntu
atamyrat reminds us that last November it was announced that the French Parliament had decided to switch to Linux. At that time the distro had not been determined. It will be Ubuntu: "[T]wo companies, Linagora and Unilog, have been selected to provide the members of the Parliament as well as their assistants new computers containing free software. This will amount to 1,154 new computers running Ubuntu prior to the start of the next session which occurs in June 2007."
the French would get something right?!?
The original generic sig.
To me, Fedora is the RPM equivalent of Ubuntu.
I'm not sure either should be used as an enterprise's first Linux desktop rollout; Windows admins aren't accustomed to their relatively furious rate of major releases.
Debian might have been a better choice, with its slow release cycle and decent security patch rollout rate.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
While it's not my favorite distro, there are plenty of support options available for Ubuntu. Of course I'm pretty sure you knew that and just felt like tossing out a troll. The alternative is you're just daft.
Well-done troll, except Canonical does indeed provide paid support. Also, I fail to realize how sodomy plays a role in this wonderful distro, but I'm not one to judge based on the omission of a few pesky facts. "Don't complain, fix it" is my philosophy. Great job!
INVADE IRAQ? [Y/N] _
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
In more recent times, their decsion to stay out of a disasterous war based on dubious evidence is looking better and better as time goes by.
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
The thing is that Ubuntu is built around the latest and greatest bleeding edge bits and pieces, it's quite common for stable packages to be replaced with beta versions and for things to break horribly without warning. Maybe Ubuntu could start releasing a toned down distribution for use in environments where stability and predictable behaviour is more important.
By choosing SUSE you're a direct supporter of both Microsoft and software patents.
The thing is that Ubuntu is built around the latest and greatest bleeding edge bits and pieces, it's quite common for stable packages to be replaced with beta versions and for things to break horribly without warning. Maybe Ubuntu could start releasing a toned down distribution for use in environments where stability and predictable behaviour is more important.
You have no clue how the Ubuntu releases work, do you? What you proposing exists since 06/2006, it is called Ubuntu 6.06 LTS
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Hmm. Perhaps you haven't heard of the LTS release. Dapper is supported on the desktop for 3 years, 5 on the server. Packages are stable, only getting security and bug fixes. Similar to RHEL. I'm sure this is what they're planning on using. If not, they need to fire the implementers.
"The Federal Reserve is a fraudulent system."--Lew Rockwell
End The FED. -
I think that would be expecting a lot, but if any organization chooses a linux distro, then it is in thier best interest to report any problems that happen during deployment. That alone would at least contribute something.
It is hard not to contribute while using Linux in a large organization. They've got several companies doing support and services for them and that is going to include solving bugs. If nothing else, I imagine they'll be contributing bug fixes to the french language support, which is good it being such a common language in many third world countries where Linux can be a boon.
It isn't as if the French have ever made a major correct decision...
INVADE IRAQ? [Y/N] _
While it's an interesting example, Iraq is ultimately a decision that doesn't have a "correct" answer...
The first George Bush attacked Iraq but left Saddam Hussein in power. He was widely criticized for not finishing the job.
Bill Clinton pretty much much ignored Iraq, even though he believed them to be pursuing nuclear and other WMD programs. He was widely criticized for doing nothing.
George W. Bush attacked Iraq and overthrew Saddam Hussein, but without Hussein's brutal yet stabilizing regime, the place plunged into chaos, with countless terror attacks and near civil war. Bush was widely criticized for this, even by many who supported the invasion when it was launched.
France were quite content to look the other way on Saddam Hussein's atrocities because they had a nice trade relationship with him. They were widely criticized for this "cheese eating surrender monkey" approach.
It seems like coming up with a "correct" way to deal with Iraq isn't so simple after all.
Or go for the local national stuff, like Mandriva / Mandrake ?
As opposed to the south-african origins of ubuntu, german origins of SuSE and american origins of RedHat
(Although I personally prefere SuSE's YaST to Mandriva's DrakConf. But public backing could boost sales of the distro and help finance more work on the config tools)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Yea, they chose to invade the Ivory Coast instead. http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/nov2004/ivor-n09 .shtml/ France's decision not to invade Iraq was a financial one--they were doing business with Saddam including the Oil-for-Food scandal.