Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat Challenges Swiss Government Over Microsoft Monopoly
An anonymous reader writes "'Linux vendor Red Hat, and 17 other vendors, have protested a Swiss government contract given to Microsoft without any public bidding. The move exposes a wider Microsoft monopoly that European governments accept, despite their lip service for open source, according to commentators. The Red Hat group has asked a Swiss federal court to overturn a three-year contract issued to Microsoft by the Swiss Federal Bureau for Building and Logistics, to provide Windows desktops and applications, with support and maintenance, for 14M Swiss francs (£8M; $15M) each year. The contract, for 'standardized workstations,' was issued with no public bidding process, Red Hat's legal team reports in a blog — because the Swiss agency asserted there was no sufficient alternative to Microsoft products.'"
For making an operating system that no scanners work with!!
I'm just surprised that Governments so readily lets themselves be at the mercy of a foreign corporation. At the least, they could mandate open formats for when the propietary solution is better but giving them a later option to move to something else.
IIRC, Chinese government smartly maintains it's own linux distro.
Don't sue your potential customers. It's not a good way to improve your public relations.
Actually, the sad part is there is probably truth in the parent. Somebody in the procurement department either (a) Has a report from someone in their IT Department that erroneously states that they need won't work with Linux, and therefore has to be excluded from the procurement process. or (b) Has a report from someone in their IT Department that correctly states that they need won't work with Linux, and therefore has to be excluded from the procurement process. Unfortunately, that's not a Microsoft Monopoly, in either case. If its (a) then their IT staff suck, not Microsoft's fault, and not making Microsoft a monopoly. If its (b) then Linux sucks for their needs, which again is not Microsoft's fault and does not make Microsoft a monopoly.
Which is why Switzerland is being sued, not Microsoft. The summary is actually somewhat erroneous here, because this has little to do with Microsoft or its monopoly, they just happen to be the bidder here.
Most government departments have mandatory open bidding processes for procurement of everything from software to roads. If they had, in violation of these rules, given a no-bid contract to Red Hat, Microsoft could've sued the Swiss government on the exact same grounds and forced them to use a competitive bidding process. If the same process occurred in roadbuilding, and they gave a no-bid to Contractor A when Contractor B also wanted a shot to bid, Contractor B can sue. So it's true that Microsoft isn't really in the wrong here, a Swiss government agency is.
That being said, however, as to your "a" and "b" scenarios, it really doesn't matter. The way the bidding process works is that they present a set of requirements as to what the product being procured must do. Anyone who is willing to fill those requirements (either by using what they've already got or developing something new to fill them) may bid. In your "b" scenario, they would have to know not only that "Red Hat's software is currently incapable of doing something we need", but also that "Red Hat is unwilling or unable to develop that functionality." Apparently, that's not the case, since it seems Red Hat certainly does want a stab at it.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
It's bad either way. Even if it is true that they have something that genuinely can only be made to work with Windows as of today (and they genuinely cannot meet said Windows requirement in any way other than having Windows on all desktops), they should still open the bidding process and allow Linux vendors to quote them a price that includes fixing the problem in Linux.
It might still work out cheaper than going with Windows, and if it doesn't, then they can still go with Windows, secure in the knowledge that there has been a fair and open bidding process to justify their decision.
As for the monopoly argument, I don't see a problem with the term. If the Swiss government is automatically granting business to Microsoft without allowing any competitors to bid, then the Swiss government is indeed effectively granting Microsoft a monopoly. The market in question is a fairly small one, and the existence of the monopoly is the fault of the Swiss government rather than of Microsoft, but it appears to exist nonetheless.
By your logic, if the goverment only had Ford motorcars then GM cars ain't an alternative since their operation is geared for Ford.
Doesn't fly my friend.
Well, that's because your analogy is crap.
A better might be if they only had diesel cars, and had their own filling stations that only had tanks/pumps for diesel, and someone wants to sell them gasoline or compressed natural gas cars. But that doesn't really work since in that case it's the cars (what's being replaced) that are the "important" part, whereas really it's probably what isn't being replaced (the applications) that's the important part.
For 10 million (or more) dollars, I'm pretty sure Red Hat could make whatever they need to work work. The biggest advantage Linux has is enterprise installations that are large enough to absorb programmer salaries into the budget, and thus can customize the entire installation for a one time cost.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
Microsoft Works Tirelessly to make sure you have little glitches, by breaking every Open Standards it can get its grubby hands on, if you want examples look no further than the Kerberos extensions which they tried to NDA until MIT's lawyers pointed out that the extension was a derivative of copyright work and the laughable Excel ODF formula screw up.
They dont want to interoperate but will be forced to do so.
All that's needed to qualify is self-governance for the constituent entities, with clearly defined limits which cannot be encroached upon by the central government.
Which proves that the US is not a federation. c.f. Gonzales v Raich.
The US was intended to be a federation, but the states have been gradually weakened to the point that they have only whatever power the central government chooses to allow them, and not one bit more. The big turning point was the 16th and 17th amendments. The 16th gave the federal government the power of the purse and the 17th liberated it from state oversight.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.