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!!
For anybody interested how this interacts with all the pro linux movements from the EU recently, well its completely orthogonal Switzerland is not a member of the EU.
Btw i believe the issue here is the lack of bidding process not that the contract went to Microsoft, like if all the contracts for costly wars in the midle east were given to a particular company without offering them up to any of the competition, good thing shit like that doesn't happen...oooh!
IranAir Flight 655 never forget!
Nowhere did the summary say EU.
European != EU.
OMG we should come with a version of Linux Monopoly! Instead of going to jail, you get fined for violating the GPL, and it instead of collecting $200 when passing Go, you can instead up the rev number of your sourceforge-hosted project up one notch.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
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.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Just be aware that Switzerland is NOT an EU member, so only Swiss laws does apply.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Don't sue your potential customers. It's not a good way to improve your public relations.
Like the USA, Switzerland is a federation, much smaller, but beautifully formed. The Kantons (18?) are the main source of power, not the federal government. And Direct Democracy means that the equivalent of Presedential signing is a referendum on legislation AFTER is is passed by the Bundesrat. Actually the referendum is negative, ie it vetos what the pols passed.
This is _why_ Switzerland is not in the EU, last time the pols tried it was thrown out by a 87% majority and that was the second asking so it wont come back for 30 years. Switzerland is in EFTA and has a bilateral treaty with the EU and is implementing the Shengen accord. Less strict frontier controls. If a question is decided at referendum it can normally be asked once again, but if voted down it is rude, and pointless to bring it back so pols cant saw, or piggy back the way they can in the US.
Many parts of Switzerland do use open source, The City of Zurich (Stadt Zürich) uses it extensively, as does Academia. Kanton Zürich provides tax preparation software free for Linux, Mac & M$Win.
Seriously, I've been running Linux as my primary OS for a while now, and my work laptop is joined to Active Directory at work through Likewise Open. Even so, the integration is rudimentary at best, and every piece of software has its own little tweaks and settings. Single sign-on is a PAIN on Linux. Group policies don't exist. Peripheral compatibility is spotty, particularly with scanners. Multi-factor auth is a pain in the ass. Remote desktop (VNC) is really slow compared to RDP which makes VPN-from-home scenario painful.
Those are a few MUST HAVE things that work in Windows out of the box. RedHat should hire a few more engineers and get them cracking on those, before spending a ton of money on lawyers.
I do think that they could have supplied quite a bit on the server side, though. File serving, web serving, document sharing, DB - those things don't need Windows anymore.
So would the different distros be different properties? Cos I'm not sure how I feel about building a datacenter (hotel) on Mandrake avenue.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Responding to a troll perhaps, but I've never had a scanner that doesn't work with linux. Xsane is pretty solid.
"linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
[snip] Group policies don't exist. [snip some more]
Linux does things differently. Different != inferior.
$ make available
The Swiss like their operating systems like their cheese -- Plenty of holes.
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.
Well it is only one department, at least one other department has a different approach. The Swiss Department of Public Instruction, which has the motto "Long Live Free Software" and is responsible for IT policy in Swiss schools, has encouraged Linux boots in the interests of leveling the playing field for students unable to afford new computers with the latest Microsoft software, a policy in place since late 2008.
... could someone like RH claim that they could provide a solution that'd be 100%-compatible with the existing MS environment at a lower cost? I seriously doubt this would be the case.
Microsoft can't truthfully claim this, either. They certainly can't claim a lower cost than MS, but they can't even claim 100% compatibility, either.
That doesn't stop them from making the claim, though...
"City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
it makes sense they'd go directly to MS rather than go through a public bidding process when they want to upgrade.
Many countries have laws that require a public bidding process when any governmental organization procures some good or service. You can't just ignore that when planning to make a large procurement, because that means that tax funds could be spent on a suboptimal solution.
Of course, that may happen anyway, but a public bidding process lowers that risk somewhat.
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.
There are plenty of accurate analogies to explain this situation. Resorting instead to such a foolish and misleading one just makes all open source advocates look disingenuous and dishonest, when those are exactly (some of) the traits of Microsoft that we condemn.
I see you are looking for excuses, not for solutions...
Ezekiel 23:20
Because that is the unfortunate reality in most of Europe, not only in EU countries.
One that hath name thou can not otter
The word "building" in there makes me wonder whether this department might actually have some kind of legitimate need for CAD software or such, which tends to be under-represented on Linux (and Mac, for that matter).
Village idiot in some extremely smart villages.
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.
There's no use debating how much the agency would save with an MS-alternative. Influential organizations like large corporations, universities, and government agencies will always get substantial discounts on Windows and Office license agreements. MS knows these entities have enormous leverage over their vendors' and customers' software choices. IE-only web sites, VBA applications, and Word forms make alternative software less attractive or even impossible to use.
I work for a large corporation that produces a lot of documents and applications our customers and vendors need to work with. MS worked out the pricing so that any other OS or office suite was a much greater capital expense on the balance sheet. They were even nice enough to provide free professional services to help us develop "solutions" that invariably locked customers and vendors into MS products.
the Linux Kernel itself replaces Boardwalk, because it's the most important piece of software in a Linux distro
Somewhere in a basement beneath MIT, Richard Stallman just peed his pants in exasperated fury.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
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.
When I installed Linux my Canon scanner just worked.
When I installed Windows, it told me I needed to install a driver. What does that mean?
Have you actually TRIED using X Window, even over broadband? I have. There are several drawbacks to it:
1. It is VERY slow, slower than VNC. It runs like a snail compared to RDP.
2. If you get disconnected, for whatever reason, your apps die and you lose data. In year 2009 this is UNACCEPTABLE.
3. Did I mention it is VERY slow?
I would believe that if the cost of support wasn't thrown into the mix. Windows, Linux, and OSX all offer support services for their software. Part of what the summery was stating was the cost of that support. Red Hat offers such a service for a fee which any one doing the research into the bidding process for the OS's should know. This is why Red Hat is and should be upset they are being taken out of the running before they can even start. This is how they make their money off of their OS.
I don't know if there is foul play here because some of the applications and hardware that work under windows don't exist or don't work as well under other operating systems. I still think they should have had an open bidding process and if Red Hat(or other linux distros and OS's) couldn't meet their needs with the price as well as the software then Microsoft would be free to take it. It shouldn't be a problem if it's just a formality, but it wasn't even setup like that, which is why I see Red Hat as being justified in being upset with the bidding process.
Exactly. Switzerland states that only MS will do, but how can you truly know what's available without a public bid?
Put identity in the browser.
Richard Stallman aggressively recommends that everyone use the term GNU/Linux instead of Linux.
signature is pants
... so, they're doing what any reasonable company would do?
Adjust their final price, offer incentives, and taylor the product they're delivering in order to win the customer's business.
If the customer got what they wanted, and saved a bundle in the process, and did so legally, beating out what any other competitor offered... how is that a bad thing?
-David
The Swiss like their operating systems like their cheese -- Plenty of holes.
I know you're trying to be funny, but I'll put on my pedantic hat and remind everyone that Switzerland makes lots of cheeses, few of which contain holes.
What you're thinking of is that yellowish waxy product made in Wisconsin or California that vaguely resembles emmenthaler. By contrast, appenzeller and gruyere, for example, are similarly popular, and have no holes.
So much for your holey theory. ;-)
Bullshit. DO your homework. HP printers/scanners all work under Linux. I've not had a need to search for other drivers, but I'm sure there are more.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
not like clocks?
Just be aware that Switzerland is NOT an EU member
But we did democratically vote and sign several bilateral treaties.
RedHat challenges to see if they could use the implications of some of those treaties and ask for a public bid.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
In fact I can go further and inform you that Swiss law is the only real issue here.
Switzerland did not enter into the EEA-agreement and only has bilateral agreements with the EU on trade etc.
All EU related law is processed by the EFTA Court (not the EU equivalent).
The Schengen agreement only relates to travel.
See more at http://www.efta.int/
Even so, from Switzerland's perspective that's an even better reason to squeeze Microsoft by having an open bidding process that drives the price down. Why pay them $15m when you could force them to discount?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
He's been promising an operating system, GNU Hurd, for a long time.
He's been promising an operating system called GNU, and Hurd is the name of its kernel. Since it's the canonical (but not the Canonical :D) version of GNU, it needn't be called GNU/Hurd.
Also, RMS suggests that you use a slash in "GNU/Linux" such that "GNU" isn't understood as an adjective. If the FSF made their own distro, it might be reasonable to call it "GNU Linux" to distinguish it from other distros (and since GNU is already in the name, calling it "GNU GNU/Linux" probably isn't necessary). Just like it's appropriate to refer to "GNU Emacs" to distinguish it from other Emacsen such as XEmacs.
Not Swiss!
It is a more flexible language spoken here.
Money law applies, actually.
Some 15 months ago Bill came In Athens - Greece, gave a lecture on innovation [Microsoft's vision on the future of technology] as he put it.
At the same time and roughly through the same procedure ( no public bidding process) a 70,000 win OS + office licenses agreement was signed, between Microsoft and the Greek Minster of Economy at that time, Mr Alogoskoufis.
The motivating benefit has been 50 Visual Studio licenses for as long the contract lasts, plus an innovation portal. In other words 667.49 x 50 = 33,374,5 euros and a portal for 9 to 36 million job, since unit prices remained unclear, pending a additional agreement.
Could you deal better?
http://hellug.gr/ reacted (among many others notably), but not effectively.
Full coverage (in Greek): http://www.ffii.gr/ms-gov-agreement
The agreement (in English): http://sandbox.cs.uchicago.edu/blog_el/files/SPA.en.pdf
This March deposition in Novell v. Microsoft is an insult to the court, the Law, and any intelligent reader. It's time they threw the book at this liar and thief.
you had me at #!
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,
Regardless, they are required to put it out for tender. Even if they think only one company is capable of supplying a service, it has to go thruogh an open specification and bidding process. Deciding on the vendor for a multi-millon dollar contract on the basis of a memo from some IT guy is not good government. It creates a huge incentive for corruption.
Well, in fact it's a modification of VNC
no, its a secure x windows implementation, not at all VNC, and considerably better, faster than VNC (and I still like/use VNC)
The Admin and the Engineer
I have an older HP all in one scanner that doesn't even work with vista, yet the latest ubuntu picks it up out of the box... It did with with xp, but you had to install hp's rather bloated drivers.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
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.
Exactly. Or:
c) Their IT staff is really good at supporting Windows but doesn't know, nor care to learn how to support Linux. So they can replace all their IT staff or they can go with Windows.
There is still a lot of software out there that doesn't support Linux at least on the client side. For example: SAP, AutoCAD, MS Office (sucks but still the best office suite IMHO) are all Windows client only systems. Sometimes not bidding isn't picking on the vendor you don't go with, sometimes it is "I know what I need, and I know only one vendor supplies it".
P.S. I'm a UNIX/Linux admin not a MS fanboy. I just would rather see a well supported system that meets the users' needs, than have somebody go with a platform they can't support just because it is cheaper and the developers' say it can do what they need.
Switzerland states that only MS will do, but how can you truly know what's available without a public bid?
Indeed. But all too often, you can't even know it then. It's common practice in every government agency everywhere to "fix" a purchase or hire process in a simply way. You get together with the bidder/applicant that you want to win, and make up a set of "requirements" that are carefully tailored to have at least one item which you know each potential vendor/applicant will fail. You might include reasonable-sounding explanations for why each requirement item really, really needed. Then you publish your bidding process with the extensive list of "requirements", and whaddaya know, there's only one bidder that satisfies all of them.
It sounds like the people who run this agency couldn't even be bothered to go through such a simple bogus-bidding process, and just hired Microsoft without inviting anyone else. We have a simple name for that sort of process: corruption. The fix was in, Microsoft got the contract, the managers got their kickbacks, and everyone was happy. Except those spoilsports at Red Hat.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.