Slashdot Mirror
Mandriva's Open Letter To Steve Ballmer
An anonymous reader writes "An entry on the Mandriva Blog, written by Mandriva CEO François Bancilhon, says that the Nigerian government, after ordering thousands of Classmate PCs with Mandriva Linux installed, has suddenly decided that they will instead install Windows. They will pay for the pre-loaded Mandriva Linux on the low-cost computing devices intended for children in the developing world, but immmediately replace the OS. The blog doesn't quite use the 'B' word but does suggest that this was not a decision that the Nigerian government made on its own."
There are those who are going to say that what Microsoft did isn't wrong and that it's 'just business'. If Bob's Concrete Construction paid the government $1 million to get the contract to build a new major freeway bypass, you guys would be calling it bribery. But when it's Microsoft paying the government to use Windows you call it business.
Someone with this viewpoint -- please explain this fanboy logic to me.
My blog
From one perspective (although undoubtedly an unpopular one here on /.) a free copy of Windows is worth more than a free copy of Mandriva. If MS came by later and offered free, or heavily discounted copies of Windows, I could see how Nigeria would accept it. After all, it vastly increases the range of applications that are now available for them to use. It's a great deal for Microsoft. Get those Nigerian kids entrenched in the Microsoft camp at a young age.
Like I said, it may not be popular here, but I can see how this deal could be viewed as good for both parties by both parties...
Quote:but what is the "B" word? Blackmail?
I do not have mod points but the parent's question is legitimate.
Actually articles that got phrases like "b,c,etc words" should not get to the front page. Besides there being hundreds of words that start with b, it's just bad journalism to write in such a childish way. If you don't want to say the word because it's rude or inappropriate there are most likely synonyms in the English language.
I'm not an english native speaker and i can find a lot of meanings for "b word".
Mod parent underrated
Hugs and kisses
But I'll give you another perspective, by necessity pure fiction, of how it could work. Suppose there is this small Eastern European country, nevermind which one. It has a minister in charge for the state administration. He could be a small, nerdy guy with heavy glasses on a big nose. His salary isn't great, and he has a lot of expenses.
... for now. Finally, there is the government. First, they gotta be legal. They have reputation to mind, besides, there are always those "free trade" incentives the vendor can play. Besides, there is the Z - Y thingy.
So, what has he gotta do? He's gotta make some money on the side. But how? Well, he figures, he'll get a "commission" on what his department pays. He doesn't know much about IT, he doesn't care much about his department. But he knows how much his expenses are. So, he makes a calculation. He needs X. His commission rate is Y. The total budget he needs is Z = X/Y or thereabouts. Then, he goes shopping.
What does shopping look like? He has some people he trusts, very few. They make some calls, private. They talk about lotsa things, but one thing is repeated. "We have budget Z, and we need an offer". The people being called of course know what Y is, so they figure out they got Z-Y. They make some offers. The minister picks his candidates. Then real work begins.
The suppliers can only be chosen by winning a bid. So, the already agreed offer is then carefully drafted into the conditions for the bidding, in such way that only the chosen can win. Then, after all preparations, the bid is announced, applications are gathered by all -- suckers and winners, and, after a procedure, a winner is announced.
Sometimes suckers try hard. Real hard. They do a lot of work (including some trash-digging and what you not), and even manage to win. But they win the public auction. They never win the one the minister has set up, because they have never had the minister's offer -- it is not for everyone. So, if they win, the minister loses.
That is why even if they win, they never win. There is always a change afterwards, and they kicked out. On a technicality, or a new rule, or just on a whim -- it doesn't matter. They can't win, because they don't even compete. That's how it could work on one side.
Consider the other side now. A big software company is determined not to let go of the market in that country. But what is the market there? First of all, there are the home installs. These are all pirated, and collection is not possible. So, the software vendor scratches them out. For now. There is the business sector. They are also kinda semi-legal, and need to be squeezed, but for that the vendor needs the helping hand from the government. So, the vendor scratches em out
So, the vendor invests a (small) amount in an office, hires some very shrewd local staff. Pays big salary, taxis, etc. All they need to do is get the government deal. So they do. The vendor doesn't want to know how, of course. So they play the "we're so blind" game. Somehow someone in the vendor's office gets the call. Then they are on it. They give the offer. They win.
Then the fun begins. The vendor's formula is usually setup so that from the first (Z - Y) they get enough to finance their operations in that country for a decade. Then another deal comes. And another. The more, the merrier. Until the budget is used up, it is all Z - Y. Relations improve. Then, the government starts to squeeze on the businesses. Then on the home users. And the vendor keeps profiting. The relationship can expand publicly -- and it could be "free" sometimes. Like, all government employees receive "free" licenses for home use. Or some schools get "free" licenses. Or some instiutions. There maybe some protests from other interested parties.
But, whatever happens on the surface, the game is the same. There is always the Z - Y equation in the background. Those who don't compete in that auction never win. Even when they do. And so it goes.
Most of what you say stopped being true in the late 90s.
If MS came by later and offered free, or heavily discounted copies of Windows, I could see how Nigeria would accept it.
For it to even start to break even, M$ is going to have to pay to have it installed as well as providing all of the required software free of charge. Note that M$ does not own all of the software required, like Adobe Reader, Flash and countless other must have software packages.
[Windows] vastly increases the range of applications that are now available for them to use.
The only thing increased by Windows is the rage of stuff you need to buy. The free software world gives you a choice of quality applications that are cost free and easily modified to suit any particular purpose. Bits in a box will never be as good a match for your needs and they often come with additional and costly restrictions. There are very few upsides left to M$ domination.
Like I said, it may not be popular here, but I can see how this deal could be viewed as good for both parties by both parties.
We can be sure that the deal was great for the parties directly involved but the users have been sold.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
It could well be that Ballmer and his friends are making a charitable gesture by donating / heavily discounting 17,000 Windows licenses - there's probably a nice little earner in it for whoever is running the project too, as 17,000 Windows installs will take a good deal of manpower / project management / consultancy fees etc.
One swallow does not a fellatrix make
So they had a computer loaded with a bunch of apps and an OS, all tuned for the device. Then they wipe that off and put some version of Windows with write, paint and Outlook Express on it? Hopefully they got minesweeper and solitaire too, with the promise of porting Freecell with the next service pack.
I don't think merely donating or heavily discounting Windows would do the job if the government was "sold" as the open and custonizability aspect of Mandriva. I think the cost to Nigeria for Windows would have to be negative to get them to pay for and ship Mandriva and then pay the cost of replacing Mandriva with Windows. By this I mean that it seems to me that the only way for this to make economic sense is for Microsoft to cover the cost of Mandriva, the cost of a replacement, and then add something for incentive to replace Mandriva at all. (that last part we call a bribe)
Um, I hate to be the one to point this out, but this story is not about the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) project.
Nigeria, in it's infinite wisdom, chose not to participate in the OLPC project. Instead, they opted to go for the Intel Classmate PC, and were originally convinced to use a model supplied with Mandriva Linux and some fairly extensive regionalization and software customization developed and preloaded. I submit that it was this same customization which must have been the deciding factor in selecting this platform to begin with.
The issue at hand is that now, after they agreed to a initial contract for 17,000 units, they have suddenly and without any apparant rationale, decided to take delivery of this order as committed and then pay to have Microsoft Windows installed on every system. There has been no reasonable explanation put forward, either by the Nigerian Government, Microsoft or and third party as to why Nigeria would choose to incur the non-zero costs of acquisition and deployment of Windows on these systems.
It is not a matter of comparing the costs of Linux vs. Windows, as the cost of the Mandriva licenses are embedded in the acquisition and are thus a sunk cost. Even if Microsoft agreed to give away the Windows licenses for free, there would still be a costs to customize and install Windows on the 17,000 target machines. There is no way to get around the fact that this is a real, after-the-fact new cost that either the Nigerian Government is paying out of pocket (with no explanation to it's taxpayers as to the reason), or is being footed by Microsoft for some improper purpose (Microsoft shareholders are not in the business of thrid world charity). As well, there has been no discussion as to any possible customization and/or regionalization of the target platform (Classmate PC with Windows XP), much less any comparison to the work committed to by Mandriva.
Lest that last argument be discounted, allow me to argue that there is no demonstrable reason to have selected a Classmate PC running Mandriva for (or any other Linux) for $200 over the OLPC XO platform (with customized, pre-installed Linux) at $100 per unit, unless it has to do with the customization and/or suitability to task of the specific bundled platform. Please note that in his open letter, Francois clearly stated that this was an open process that Microsoft fought long and hard against, and still Mandriva managed to beat out both the Classmate + Windows and OLPC + Linux options, only to suffer a very odd reversal at the 11th hour.
If any Microsoft apologist here can invent a reasonable explanation for this situation, I suggest you save posting here and instead apply to Microsoft PR for an immediate position.
-- People who think they know it all, really annoy those of us who do!
It certainly wasn't to promote MS Windows to the developing world or to lock them into proprietary standards. Plus, I think, a certain amount of thought went into tailoring the Linux distro and user interface for the target market.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Here's a couple of other people musing on the subject. It's hard to prove, of course, but it does seem spooky how every trip abroad to announce a big donation is followed by meetings on the subject of Windows contracts. As I said - no one actually states there's a connection (would you?).
Business Week
The Hindu Newspaper
I mean, does it REALLY matter what O/S is on the computer that the reaches these people?
Of course it does. Software is the first breakthrough in resource creation since farming. New and valuable things can be created and then copies made for almost no cost (for the copies). The new economy that this could create would free the poor of their long running reliance on the rich for plant and capital. That is not something Gates and his multi-billionare club want to see, since it this they who reap the reward of that reliance.
It matters a lot.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Microsoft has for a long time targeted youth in an attempt to create lifelong customers. I bet Nigeria got a sweet deal. Even if MS loses money on this venture how much do they stand to make in the long run? I know many corporate types that follow the creed, "Winning isn't everyting, it's the only thing." I'm sure Steve B. is not losing sleep over having deprived the school children of Nigeria the opportunity to use Linux (in this instance).
Bribery and corruption is just a fact of life in most of the world. I have been living in a developing nation for over a year now, and I can say from experience that most Slashdotters who are writing from the U.S. or Europe have no idea how endemic, and even accepted, corruption is outside the West. If the allegation were true, it would not be the least bit surprising to the average Nigerian.
Microsoft would not bribe the Nigerian government. They would bribe a few well-placed officials, then charge the Nigerian government enough to cover both their costs and their bribes and earn a tidy profit.
Supposing the alleged allegation is true, the winners would Microsoft and a few Nigerian decision-makers. The losers would be the Nigerian taxpayers and/or, if costs were passed on to the schools that use the computers, the children.
However, if a bribe were given, under the FCPA (Foreign Corrupt Practices Act), someone at Microsoft would be criminally liable. U.S. citizens who bribe overseas government officials are subject to prosecution at home.
-- My choice of computing platform is a symbol of my individuality and belief in personal freedom.