Campaign for Free Software in the Bundestag 317
mpawlo writes: "According to Swedish IDG.se, the president of Microsoft Germany is outraged over the Bundestux campaign. The campaign aims to put Linux in the Bundestag (German Parliament). He has sent a letter to the campaign workers - some of them members of the German parliament - stating that Microsoft is not a threat to democratic values (as argued by the campaign). Kurt Sibold also states that the only thing achieved through the campaign is a public slander of Microsoft." Also reported by the Register, if you prefer English.
Poor bill (Score:2, Insightful)
I think apple should port Mac OS X to x86. That would be cool.
I hope the swedish gov. will do the same.
Eventualy , move away from MS. Unless they
prove themself beeing better but I doubt they
will change into a more useroriented
businessmodel. They are used to the money.
But one day it will be gone.
Re:Poor Bill? (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, the first link points to a Swedish news site (instead of German newswires like Stern or Heise), but the debate is raging in Germany. Microsoft was taken off guard by this petition, and by the amount of support it has been receiving. Thus the "wounded bear" attitude in Microsoft's open letter.
Second, this is about Linux on existing computers, a market Apple definitely does NOT want to enter. Apple makes hardware, and writes its own interface above Darwin/FreeBSD. In Apple's eyes, the OS is only there to sell its own hardware, not for profit. But this isn't the place to beat THAT horse carcass.
Third, AFAICT the only one seeing this as a War is Microsoft. Microsoft is playing a Monopoly/Risk sort of game, where the winner drives all other players from the board. Apple is playing a totally different game, one where you win by being the best/coolest/owning the McGuffin. Linux advocates are sometimes playing one game, sometimes playing the other, but rarely do Linux users/advocates all play the game, or the same rules, or share the same goals.
I personally find the goal of the petition worth supporting. My personal taste runs towards Apple, but I'm willing to see the massive benefits of using existing hardware (if for no other reason than to save landfill space). And Linux is, at the moment, the best option.
Oh, some links to other reports, in German:
Stern:
http://www2.stern.de/computer-netze/news/topnew
Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,1
http://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/politik/0,1518,1
Heise Online:
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/odi-01.02.0
Why? (Score:2)
Instead of apple porting OSX to x86, it would be better for users of Linux to improve the Desktop on Linux until its as good and eventually better than OSX.
Re:Poor bill (Score:2, Interesting)
I think nobody can state this with certainty. There are too many variables in the 'equation'.
So to speak.
For once there is the .NET campaign.
While the idea of a common development
platform accessible by almost any language
(that has a compiler for it) is brilliant; --
The thought of Microsoft controlling the
Intermediate Language (some sort
of Esperanto for developers, only one-way)
gives me the shudders. I mean: instead of
processor manufacturers giving out
C-compilers for their architectures, Microsoft
could dictate to processor manufacturers,
which instructions would be supported or
not. Okay, this is only a worst case scenario.
I'm probably way off here.. hopefully. ;)
Windows will not go away so easily. If Microsoft is successful pushing .NET, maybe they could also introduce
their own version of a network protocol stack,
that could gradually replace IP. Again, this
is wildly speculative. But none the less, it
could be possible.
Back to Topic:
Bundestux.de has made some quite bold statements. I don't know if this will help them. On the other hand, if they act too timid they'd be ignored for sure. While I like the idea. If they reach their goal, it could backlash: dedicated MS Windows users will feel discriminated. That's for sure.
Unfortunately I don't know a solution. Maybe they should leave the choice to the members of parliament themselves. If some decide to use Windows, or Linux, or MacOS in their own offices, let them.
What do I hate about Microsoft? And why do I hate Microsoft? I mean, I bought (legally, no pirating) licenses for DOS5, DOS6, DOS6.22, Win3.1, Win95, Win95b, Win95OSR2, Win98, Win98SE! I have the handbooks and keys to prove it! In the last 10 years I assembled about five PCs and installed all these OS's by hand. Granted, I've also installed FreeBSD and got a stack of FreeBSD versions (from 1.0 till 3.1). And the computer I'm typing this on is an iMac (not the new one) running OSX.2.
But I'm a sucker for computer games, especially for the PC, and Windows is the platform where most of my coveted games are running on.
So why do I hate Microsoft?
Because they almost force me to 'upgrade'! Which is a misnomer, because I have to acquire a new license each time. As I perceive it, they use their OS and their applications as leverage. Like a knife where its handle and blade is replaced turn by turn.
They introduce new features in their next office package. Because Windows has to run this, they introduce a new Windows version to cope with these new features. Then they have to improve the new Windows version, because it is always buggy on a new release. This, of course, leads to a new Office version, which interfaces with the improved Windows version better. And nobody can stay behind. Everybody has to keep the pace, because newer versions of MS Word have a hard time reading documents written with older versions of MS Word.
This is especially true with environments like parliament offices, where I think document exchange is important. It is certainly possible to exchange documents between different versions of MS Word, but I think MS is speculating on lazyness and peer pressure here. ("please upgrade, I'm sick of manually converting your old stuff to read it ...")
And I have to tag along. Despite not even using any Office package! I'm using my PCs for gaming only! To make matters worse, the next big thing is published by Microsoft itself: Dungeon Siege. ARRGH!
Every government.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Time to hassle my MP
Re:Every government.... (Score:2)
Without the source how can a government be sure that the software cannot be used to spy on them or to be used to attack them? Also governments hold onto inforation for a long time, such things as census data are held for a century before being relased. Wouldn't do much good if in the future it was a case of "Here's the 2011 census, but no-one had been able to read it since 2015"
Microsoft/NSA Back Door in Windows. (Score:3, Interesting)
They cannot, indeed there is plently of evidence the Microsoft have already installed a backdoor in the CryptoAPI, as part of the US Government Echelon project.
NSA key to Windows: an open question
http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9909/03/windo
Eavesdropping on the Planet
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Eavesdro
Microsoft collaborating with US spymasters
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/65
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=activ
Re:Microsoft/NSA Back Door in Windows. (Score:2, Interesting)
Indeed, that sort of thing is probably why this happened:
Re:Every government.... (Score:2)
I assume its huge. If all the work on systems NOT involving national security (for obvious reasons) were made open source and free these budgets would be creating a vast resource.
Re:Every government.... (Score:2)
Probably even more important that systems which do involve national security exclude proprietary software. Especially from foreign companies or any which could become foreign owned in the future.
Rationale why "Every government...." (Score:4, Interesting)
Source is open, no sneaky CIA or Microsoft or script kiddies spying on formative legislation, intelligence, etc.
Saves big zorkmids on license fees (the tender spot for M$, government is a HUGE customer and can establish the trend for business and education software standards used, see all those zorkmids departing the pocketbook)
Costs some zorkmids for support and mods, but you actually get support and mods you want, rather that support and mods the closed vendor feels like providing you, creating competition in the support market (a GoodThing)
Built-in extortion of government having to "upgrade" (and shell out really big zorkmids) every few years for upgrades because M$ announces it will no longer support Windows n
Customer driven market. What the customer wants/needs isn't anticipated (and turned out in an incarnationof one-size-fits all), but tailored to the needs of the customer. If the Bundestag says "we want x that does y, in z way, then someone can step up and do it, it may take time, but of course others can benefit as it adds to open source.
As to suggestions that open source isn't good quality or pracicable (muchly as part of M$ whispering campaign against Linux, Open Source, etc.), much of that would be addressed by an expanding market.
If it succeeds, props to the Bundestag, way to show some moxie!
Re:Every government.... (Score:3)
it would save the tax payer MILLIONS of (£$E) every year, create a host of jobs
Ummm... contradiction anyone? I mean, I can see how it would save the taxpayers money initially, because they don't have to pay licensing fees. However, if it creates jobs in the government IT sector, how is that going to save them money? It will only save them money if the licensing fees exceed the salaries of the additional workers (this is the same old TCO debate, no need to re-hash it).
The other economic factor is the all-too-often neglected factor: boredom. From time-to-time, economies get bored, and then they become depressed because they have nothing to do. So far, the only answers we've found are socialism (New Deal, WPA, CCC, TVA etc.) and militarism (Nazis, Italian Fascists, etc.). Militarism has the virtue of providing a quick fix by reducing the number of job applicants and giving workers something to do after the conflict (rebuilding). Socialism has the virtue of killing people more slowly and in an apparently civilized manner (increased alcoholism and obesity of people on the doll, inferior socialized medecine, etc). The FDR brand of socialism was really not as bad as the wealth-transfer version used in the "great society". A lot of the New Deal projects actually produced work of enduring quality.
So, the real question is what will we *do* when Microsoft isn't there to tax and spend? Do you really think the government's tax and spend will be better than MSFTs? When was the last time MSFT plowed billions of dollars into a missile program? I say, down with the EU, up with MSFT. Buy your MSFT shares today, and join the Monetary Democratic Republic of Microsoft. Vote for officers that you can trust. They promise citizens that they will use your tax dollars to create cool things like the X-box, and not build any weapons systems unless their competitors force them too.
Do it today! Your company is calling you. Don't let the Germans get bored again!!!
Re:Every government.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong. They need to use the format that most people can use, which is NOT MS Office, but a standard. it's the document format that counts, not the software. There are still people who prefer to use WP, StarOffice, etc or use a "non-ms-compliant" OS . Governments should not force people to use certain software, ESPECIALLY commercial software. Pick a format that can be read by WP, StarOffice, and Word.
//rdj
Re:Every government.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Take the usecase that I encounter. I need to send sometimes a nicely formatted document to someone else, for them to edit, and send back to me (ruling pdf out). What do you suggest I send it in, if not *.doc, etc? HTML? As far as I am aware, the only standards are quite inadequate, such as RTF or the like.
Perhaps some focus on what the standard actually is, rather than the fact we should use it would be useful.
Re:Every government.... (Score:3, Insightful)
That may mean that some hyperdandy special effects cannot be used any more.
//rdj
Re:Every government.... (Score:2, Informative)
The guys at w3.org have written many standards, for many types of applications.
And if that's not enough, write you own DTD and publish it.
Sorry for all the acronyms...
Re:Every government.... (Score:2)
Would it not be great if they also used CVS for laws and regulations? then we common types would only have to down the dif's instead of a 100 page regulation evertime they change a comma to a semi-colon or add one sentence.
Re:Every government.... (Score:2)
Re:Every government.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Every government.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Right this moment, you would probably have to use MS Word format (in the real world). With the newest beta versions of OpenOffice I wouldn't even be too sad about that. I haven't had any trouble with Word documents for some time.
Fairly soon in Germany, however, the format of choice could very well be StarOffice format, and that's why Microsoft is so worried. They know that if the government starts using StarOffice, then companies doing business with the government (ie. nearly everyone) will soon be using StarOffice if for no other reason than to be compatible with the folks at the Bundestag. The only barrier to loading StarOffice on a computer is disk space. StarOffice itself is very inexpensive (and it can be installed on multiple machines), and StarOffice has a GPLed cousin OpenOffice which is Free. Both use the same document formats.
For a while most folks will probably have copies of both MS Word and StarOffice, but come upgrade time the cost of Microsoft Office will almost certainly seem like a big chunk of change. After all, MS Office is good, but if your clients and customers (and the government) are reasonably likely to have a copy of StarOffice, then paying for MS Office is just one more added expense.
The fact that StarOffice was originally written in Germany probably isn't hurting its case either.
If StarOffice takes off, then Microsoft is in big trouble. Not only does StarOffice completely destroy the market for Microsoft's Office cash cow, but it paves the way for alternative OSes like Linux or Solaris. No doubt that's why Sun is giving StarOffice away for free.
Use Word into eternity? (Score:3, Insightful)
What we need is an open standard. To see why just look at the internet. TCP/IP works so well, that you don't even have to think about it. That is because everyone who implements a TCP/IP stack better plays by the rules, or he won't play at all, and his customers will turn on him if it screws up. If you tried to sell a TCP/IP stack that mangled IP-Packets from older TCP/IP stacks, to make everyone go and buy your new software, it wouldn't work, because everyone could see it's you who violates the standards. But with Word Microsoft does exactly that, because they don't even stay true to their own standards.
--
Re:Every government.... (Score:3, Insightful)
> In the light of the fact that governments tend to need to interact with other bodies, I would say they need to use what most other people are using. Which is MS Office.
Thank you for pointing out the need for an ISO standard for document representations.
A standard unencumbered by some robber baron's IP, I should add.
Nothing would unravel Microsoft's hegemony in the WP field as quick as the existence of such a standard and governments that insisted on using it.
Re:Every government.... (Score:4, Insightful)
We are not talking about maintenance jobs. Linux, properly deployed, should actually lower maintenance costs. We are talking about programming jobs. Linux would allow the local software market to flourish instead of being tied to a handful of companies in the United States. Why should the Germans spend their money on U.S. software when they can get Linux solutions from a local German vendor (at a lower price).
For far less than a Microsoft solution the Bundestag could get a custom solution based on Linux and other open standards. This money they spend will even stay in their own economy (meaning that they will get the bulk of it back in taxes).
Let's face it, the reason that this appears to have actual supporters in the Bundestag is because it makes good political sense. Not only would using Linux lower the cost of running the government, but it would support the German economy.
I don't think that many government workers are likely to lose their jobs. There will still be plenty to do, the difference will be that much of their work will no longer be wasted caring for fragile Windows PCs. However, if I worked in IT for the Bundestag I would brush up on my Linux skills right away just in case.
Re:Every government.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the idea is that they may do some of their own development or localization (translation into German) of open source software. I don't know that open source requires any less IT support than Windows, but it doesn't require paying licensing fees, and the money that might normally be spent for licenses could be spent to hire programmers instead.
Governments have large enough budgets that it often makes sense to roll their own, rather than pay licensing fees. This is especially true when open source programs already exist that can be modified for the government's needs, rather than them having to start from scratch.
Closed source software also creates jobs, but these often aren't in the country that is buying the software, and you're also paying for high executive salaries.
there is a good point in there (Score:2, Flamebait)
The proper way to choose software is by looking at the individual problems you are trying to solve and deciding what will best fit.
and anyway, how did you THINK Microsoft was going to respond?
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:5, Insightful)
> Choosing software JUST because it's open sourced is just as bad as choosing software just because it's closed.
Perhaps "just because it's open sourced" is merely shorthand for "just because of several things that immediately follow from being open sourced", namely -
- auditability (for spyware), and
- maintainability (for when you need something the vendor doesn't care to offer, or when the vendor isn't quick enough to close a known exploit), and
- not having to go down with the ship if the vendor enrons.
Those sound like excellent reasons for choosing a product in the current business environment.Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2, Funny)
What an excellent use of the word! I propose we lobby the OED to include "enron" as a new verb in the next edition :-) I enron, you enron, he enrons,
they enron etc...
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
No it isn't. Not if you're a government: it's a really bad idea to give a commercial entity complete control over all of your documents (which are, or should be, public). I'm no open source / free software zealot by a long stretch of the imagination, but I've never understood why governments do this. IMHO, your public responsibilities as a government agency far outweigh the reduced ease of use civil servants may experience when working with something that isn't Microsoft.
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
It's a bad idea even if the commercial entity is based in your country, it's an even worst idea to do this with a foreign owned commercial entity.
Quite often government data is kept private for a period of time, then made public. The last thing you want is for this data to end up in a format which is 10, 20, 50, 100 years obsolete....
I've never understood why governments do this. IMHO, your public responsibilities as a government agency far outweigh the reduced ease of use civil servants may experience when working with something that isn't Microsoft.
Assuming Microsoft stuff actually is easy to use in the first place, which is debatable. Even the "everyone uses it" argument ceases to mean anything which the national government of a large country uses something else.
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
Well, ok, but at least they already *know* how to use Word. You won't believe how resistant "ordinary users" are to learning something new.
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
How can they possibly cope with something like MS word, which has been through several different versions in the last few years?
The same people would be made fun of if they made as much of a fuss about anything else.
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
That, and making them use software that doesn't have any sneaky back doors in it. At least with open source, you can spot them if they're there.
What about archives? (Score:2)
The big issue with any closed formats is that they become obsolete very fast. Goverments work slowly and they need to keep archives for a long time. For example, today we can read the documents that were created during WWII to study the history. Some documents are kept secret for 50 years, before they are released to the public.
How many Word documents from 15 years ago can you read today?
Re:What about archives? (Score:2)
50 years isn't the longest, the 1901 UK census was recently released after 100 years. Also even old documents which are not kept secret can be very important. e.g. to ensure that the copies of statutes and court rulings are acurate.
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem people have is with the
There is a reasonably easy way to fix this-- email all the Word users you know with a file containing an "OnClose" function which changes the default file-save-format to RTF or HTML.
I can't remember the exact code I use, but the basis is to use VBA's inherent insecurity to change people's default file format.
Re:there is a good point in there (Score:2)
Or even worst, hold the entire country to ransom or use their own computers against them militarily.
Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:5, Insightful)
What will it take for them to get it into their heads that they are just a supplier? If I found out that one of my clients was seriously considering an alternative product, I would be there grovelling, pointing out the benefits of staying with my company, maybe try to negociate a discount. But no, Microsoft are outraged! They've been slandered!
You would have though they would have learned from the Licence 6.0 fiasco. It's nice to see that the europeans (at least France, Germany and the UK) have the guts to stand up to Microsoft and consider alternatives. Why isn't this happening in the US?
Re:Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:2)
Erm, from where i'm sitting, all I can see is this bizarre threesome consisting George Bush, President Blair and Bill Gates. And Mr. Blair is the GimpBoy peforming ludicrous ass-li.... anyway, i get carried away with myself.
The UK gov have just signed deals with MS for software for parliamant and the National Health Service. Oh, but dont worry..... 'Ol Tony got a great deal from his bestest mate Bill.
ffs
Re:Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:2)
OK. But actually I was thinking about The Infrastructure Forum, which represents many big IT purchasers in the UK, including some government departments. See here [bbc.co.uk] and here [tif.co.uk]. To my knowledge nothing like this exists in the US.
Re:Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:2)
Bear in mind that this is a protest against the German government's reliance on closed source (i.e. Microsoft), not a statement that Germany is open source friendly.
Perhaps the difference between Germany/Europe and the USA is that Europeans are more inclined to take their grievances straight to their (federal) parliament rather than to their local (state) representatives. I'm not making a value judgement about either system, just mentioning that the USA is more region/state-oriented than most European countries.
Incidentally, the statement in this petition that the UK is pro-open source is highly spurious. The British President - sorry, sorry, technically he's still known as the Prime Minister - is so pro-Bill that it's actually embarrasing. Some UK government departments have made noises about looking at open source, but that mostly seems to be a negotiating tool to get cheaper Microsoft licenses, just as the mention of the UK leading the way in open source in this petition is intended to stoke the fires of Anglo-German rivalries. Politics, all politics.
Re:Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:2)
Sort of, there are obvious exceptions such as the UK NHS deal.
Why isn't this happening in the US?
Microsoft is a major earner of foreign currency to the US for one thing///
Why not? (Score:2)
We allow GM foods of shaky nutritional quality and proprietary GM seeds that wreak havok on regular crops by crossbreeding with them. The EU bans this stuff, the US says we don't even have a right to know if we're getting GM crops.
Trademark lawsuits between legal firms and individuals with the same name have shown that, in the US, you don't have the right to your own name.
Heck, we allow firms to manufacture torture devices for export.
Why not let M$ run amok, too?
Re:Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:3, Interesting)
Except many of the signitories are actually the client, not a competitor. I think most suppliers would act differently in this situation.
or do you find it a bit difficult to step back from problems and look at them with an open mind?
Since you are insinuating things about me, I'll do the same for you. I suggest that you've not been in the situation of being directly responsible for a major client account when that client is seriously considering alternatives.
Re:Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:2)
How you deal with a customer who's considering alternatives is a matter of strategy. You need to evaluation who within the client organization is opposed, what their influence is, and how you can best counter that influence.
My first reaction to this response from Microsoft is that it's the stupidist thing they could possibly have done. They could have just passed this off as a bunch of left wing crazies raising a ruckus, but now the petition is big news and has real cedibility. Bad mistake.
On the other hand, the Microsoft.de guy is obviously much closer to the situation than I am and clearly feels that his response is the correct one. Certainly he's more qualified to judge this than me. Time will tell.
Re:Microsoft is the same as ever (Score:2)
This case is a bit different because the German government is even more of a monopoly than Microsoft. Nearly everyone does business with their government, and if the government asks for documents in StarWriter format, you don't send them a Word document.
That's why Microsoft is up in arms, they know that if the German government starts using (and mandating) StarOffice then they are likely to see sales of the German edition of MS Office plummet. Even if relatively few machines in the Bundestag are converted it could have a totally devastating effect due to the millions of folks that are required to share documents with the Bundestag.
The fact that MS Office is somewhat more featureful than StarOffice won't matter one bit, because if you are dealing with the government the most important feature is using the same Office suite that they are using. The fact that StarOffice is a good product that is available for free (and that was originally made in Germany) doesn't hurt either. If the government were to switch, it probably wouldn't take too long for StarOffice to become the official German Office suite. The only reason that Microsoft keeps mentioning Linux as their number one threat is that they don't want to tip people off about StarOffice. Changing your operating system is hard, and requires you to learn a whole new set of programs. Replacing MS Office with StarOffice is much easier, and it carries almost all of the same financial benefits of a full migration to Linux (Windows is included in the price of nearly all machines MS Office isn't).
Trusted software. (Score:5, Interesting)
Windows has some good technology in it, and it is nowdays a halfway-decent product. The problem isnt windows, its Microsoft.
You just plain cant trust Microsoft, one bit. You dont evven have to ascribe to malevolence. I'm not saying they are nessesarily evil, I am saying they are unreliable. Their attitude to fixing their broken and insecure software (whatever proportion of it you think fits that description) is poor to non-existant, and getting worse. And if they arent going to take the US government seriously (DoJ) then we know they dont even care about any other government, once the licence fees have been paid up.
Re:Trusted software. (Score:2)
This would tend to exclude proprietary software, especially propriatary software which does not originate from within their own nation.
Without an ability to actually see the souce code you'd be in effect asking a government to put faith into a foreign commercial entity. Why should a (not corrupt) government even think of doing this?
freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
The free market needs maitainance, if it gets dominated by colluding huge companies that can kill competition (or just purchase it) then the term free market is just an advertising jingle.
I can't understand why they even consider Windows. (Score:5, Insightful)
The US has admitted that they spy their allies. So why using an US system ? That's a raving security problem. You never know how much backdoor-infested such a system might be. And even code audits won't help with a system with millions of lines of code. They won't never find any decent hidden backdoor.
The Linux question is about security not about money. However nobody admits this because they don't want to piss off the US.
(OT) Re:I can't understand ... (Score:2)
the guy's dad worked for the Dutch military police!
MS has offered to disclose the source (Score:2)
As a result, MS has offered to disclose the source.
This move isn't really too unusual for MS, and the
usual (ND-) agreements would apply.
But I have to say that I doubt that the necessary
resources exist to check the code thoroughly.
I would prefer our government to use Linux.
They are missing one more country. (Score:2)
* South Korea just ordered 120.000 open source office solutions and is looking to save up to 80% of previous costs.
* Great Britain plans the mandatory introduction of open source software in the public sector.
* The development of secure software with openly accessible source codes plays a central role within the EU commision's IT initiative "e-europe".
It seems they forgot about South Africa
Re:They are missing one more country. (Score:2)
There have been a couple of initiatives examining the suitability of various open source systems in the public sector (as an example, they just started looking at open source as a potential component of the next police 'IT platform'), but they're by no means about to throw out the massive investment they have in all government departments, merely in order to jump toward open source.
Translation of Microsofts open letter (Score:3, Redundant)
Translation:
Dear Sirs,
i address you with this open letter in your function as the first signers of the werk21 ( the originators of the campaign ) campaing www.bundestux.de. With some astonishment i noticed that you share the opinion that ".. the introduction of a free operating system in the german bundestab ( the german parliament ) would be a necessary signal for reasons of competitve policy, national policy and democratic reasons."
In your declaration you claim that it is necessary to use democratic rules in the use of IT as well and you conclude that therefore ".. it would almost be the duty of a democratic country to use free software".
I conclude from that, that a country that does not use Linux must be undemocratic or at least does not fulfill its democratic duties.
Well, there may be understandable pragmatic reasons to vote for the use of open source software, though you will understand that from my point of view i have equally understandable pragmatic reasons to think that better reason exist to suggest the use of Microsoft products for the Bundestag.
But what does the decision for or against a operating system have to do with "democratic rules" or "duties of a democratic country" ?
Open source software is, as you mention, not in itself a guarantee for free competition, as well as a decision for products from my company ( Microsoft ) at this time, as well as in the past, is not and must not be a "undemocratic" decision. As the first signers you pressure members of the parliament to create real competition by making a decision for open source software as the only alternative.
What you do with your support for this campaign is a public discrimination of our products ( Microsofts) and services to be a hinderance ? to democracy. As my 1300 co-workers in germany feel with such claims, i was able to learn from numerous e-mails. The impact this has for our partners, uncounted small and medium-sized software companies and with our clients, who do not feel limited in their understanding of democracy, i can only imagine.
Therefore i apell to you: Let us, in the interest of a best solution for the staff of the parliament, return to a pragmatic discussion. I dont mean with that, that a discussion is only pragmatic if it results in a decision for microsoft products. It should though, be based on an assessment of cost and ability of the products and services in the light of the needs of the users.
yours sincerely,
Kurt Siebold, Microsoft Germany
Open response to Kurt (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this is not a correct conclusion to draw.
However, for a democratic system to work, nobody must be excluded from participating in democratic processes. Nobody must be excluded from disseminating information, based on whether or not they can afford a specific piece of software, nobody should be forced to accept a specific software license to participate in a democracy.
Microsoft has historically, is an important principle in their business model, excluded those who do not accept their license from using systems developed by Microsoft. Whether or not this acceptable at all, may be an issue for the open market, but it certainly is not acceptable in the context of democracy.
Free Software is built on other principles, and therefore, it is better suited for governmental use. Linux is just one implementation of these principles. You are free to make another implementation, and you are free to make other implementations of the same systems. This freedom is essential to fulfil democratic duties. If Microsoft is unable to ensure these freedoms, then Microsoft products must be abandoned.
linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Why you should not trust'em (Score:4, Interesting)
The chances may be slim, and a conspiracy theory involved, but still, this [cnn.com] is a good reason not to trust Microsoft.
Talk about digging a hole... (Score:3, Insightful)
Now they are on the receiving end, they are outraged... in my opinion this is outright hypocritical behaviour... Perhaps they should learn their lesson. It is never EVER a good idea to try to look good by throwing dirt at competitors. The only way for them to go is to show they are better by creating better products and take a more modest attitude.
Anyone know the German for "Monkey Boy"? (Score:2, Funny)
This could be useful stuff to know for the next convention of MS Gmbh...
Goose - Gander Time. (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it interesting MS is going so far as to be saying they're being discriminated against by comments made about Microsoft.
Wasn't it fairly recently Ballmer and those of his ilk in the MS empire were saying Linux / open software was 'unamerican' and 'communist'?? They oviously don't mind criticizing when they're playing hardball or violating antitrust laws but if they're on the end of the comments, they're so offended and being discriminated against.
Speaking of anti-trust laws. Though convicted, have they yet said 'gee, guess we did it.' or so much as 'sorry'. I don't believe they yet acknowledge it, even to themselves. Guess that's why I have little use for them.
Re:Goose - Gander Time. (Score:2)
It's about their double standard.
Re:Goose - Gander Time. (Score:2)
But really, none of that matters even matters.
Any country where people are vanished frequently, or where they're executed for having a photocopier, it unlikely to be a happy one, regardless of the label for their economic system.
Fuhrer of Microsoft Germany? (Score:2, Funny)
Going back to sleep now... wake me up when the discussion's over...
Ich habe kein Probleme mit Microsoft Anwendung (Score:2, Insightful)
I want a variety of systems, ok, it may not be quite so easy to manage, but it means that your complete network doesn't get trashed because of one stupid vulnerability.
However, in crtical systems (either because of availability or confidentiality) then I want open source. Even there, I would like to see multiple system types though, i.e., OpenBSD as well as Linux.
Mind you, Microsoft applications and operating systmes are far from cheap. Buy them with OLP and you keep paying. Buy them as a one-off and there is a lifetime on the software before you pay for upgrades.
Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
This is true, microsoft embraces and extends open source software all the time. BSD socket code and kerberos come to mind. But never anything with a GPL license.
It is so hilarious that they are claiming to be discriminated against, after all those years of Microsofts anti-competitive behavior. I bet a lot of companies complained that microsofts tactics were unfair too. And the courts agreed. Microsoft is a convicted criminal, on 7 counts that are just short of the same charges that they use to put away mob bosses for life.
Microsoft should just consider this to be an innovative method of competition. Open standards, learn them and love them.
Fully open file formats and compliance with non encumbered open standards is the future. Microsoft has already proven time and time again that proprietary software with hidden code is not secure. It is more expensive and it just isn't as flexible. Every other piece of computer equipment got 10 times cheaper and 100 times more powerful over the past 10 years, but the software is no faster now than then. And it costs more, it is now the most expensive single part of a computer system.
Of course there was a reaction to this inequitable pricing and the illegle tactics required to enforce the monopoly. Free software. The vast majority of open source software is written by highly experienced computer experts who are sick and tired of dealing with computers that look pretty but constantly crash and lose work.
Look for computer science to begin rapidly advancing with open sharing and improvements to be made with total comunications in the precise languages used to communicate our intentions to computers.
Tax free hardware in the Bundestag? (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know how this works now in this world of preinstalled systems but it was a legal entitlement that several local people tested. Getting that refund wasn't easy though. Maybe the Bundestag will do better!
Re:Tax free hardware in the Bundestag? (Score:2, Informative)
This was actually based on the M/S end-user licence that states if you do not agree, you may return the software unopened for a full-refund. At first there was a fight about it as the system vendor wanted the entire machine back. The more sensible ones realised that it was a good way to bypass the MS tax for them too.
At the same time a grey market developed in OEM s/w and licences and software. Microsoft Germany didn't like it but individuals had no restrictions about the resale of an OEM licence (I guess this is what the US people call "doctrine of first sale").
Of course, Kurt Sibold is outraged (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, it really is an important issue if interaction with government entities requires the use of specific software available only from a single vendor, and that is what is increasingly happening. Microsoft can stay in the race by scrupulously opening up their file formats so that real interoperability with non-Microsoft applications is possible. But, so far, Office and other Microsoft applications still produce files whose format does not appear to be completely documented and that cannot be read and manipulated reliably by other applications.
Bastion of Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
A few centuries ago, America's forefathers unshackled itself from a perceived tyranny that now is at the forefront of a similar fight. While European kingdons then tried to consolidate their power over the conquered lands, America was leading in the fight for democracy that pretty much erased the power of monarchs in the 20th century. With democratic power being undermined by multinational corporations that can buy their way into laws that are favorable to them, I find it amusing that those nations that favored power to the few are now espousing freedom for the many.
Before they were called monarchies. Now they are called multinational corporations. And the tables have turned.
I wonder where this will bring us.
Re:Bastion of Freedom (Score:2)
As Thomas Jefferson observed, people are willing to put up with all kinds of crap before they will get off their duffs and do something about it. For the majority of Americans, life is easier than it ever has been in human history; these are not people who will be leading the charge to anything except their own bank accounts. Revolutions are something that happens in poor countries, not rich ones.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd say that Europe is doing much better. This is, after all, the community of nations that stood by while tens of thousands were being murdered in the less fashionable half of the continent just a few years ago, and I have noticed that the governments of western Europe haved rolled over on important issues every time the US throws its diplomatic and economic weight around. This isn't to say that the average European approves of their governments' actions any more than the average American does (excluding, of course, the current war hysteria), but standing around taking convenient potshots at other countries has a nasty way of blinding oneself to one's own faults. Trust me -- I'm an American, and we are world-class experts at this sort of self-destructive hypocrisy.
Fight the good fight, but leave the arrogance at home.
Re:Bastion of Freedom (Score:2)
The American forefathers' notion of "freedom" and "pursuit of happiness" has very little to do with what we consider "freedom" and "happiness" to mean. For them, it meant the freedom own and run their own businesses (tabacco plantations, farms, manufacturing, etc.) and not pay huge amounts of tax to the British government. Happiness to them was the ability to own a business and make a shitload of money without a government taxing their profits and regulating their responsibilities.
The difference you are drawing between the leaders of America in the 18th and 19th centuries then and the leaders of America today is in definition only. Their actions are exactly the same.. the striving for the freedom to build big businesses that operate without government intervention and to not be overly taxed.
I disagree. There is no "democratic" power in a democratic country unless you mean capitalistic power and military power. I agree this isn't very different from the monarchies of old. The only real difference is the preception of representation.
Domino theory... (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft fears, that once a government (especially Germany, which is a very large IT-market) "falls" to
Linux et.al., others might soon follow.
And they know that people don't return very often to Windoze. Governments even less so.
cheers,
Rainer
Which OS should I use? (Score:2)
This gives a whole new meaning to elections. Let's just hope that politicians won't sue the OS's for unfair competition
Reply to Microsoft's Letter from a German MoP (Score:4, Interesting)
Original (German) [spiegel.de]
Google translation [google.com]
Yeah right.. (Score:2)
What part of public funds going to support a private industry is democratic? If a government is going to spend tax dollars on software, it should use and develop software that will directly benefit taxpayers.
M$ not a threat nor a benefit to Democracy (Score:2)
I may be wrong but my perception of the original German text is more along the lines that Microsoft is not an added value to the Democratic process, thus kind of implying Democracy would be better served with an Open System.
Study against Bundestux (Score:2, Informative)
According to Infora, Linux indeed has the better server abilities, and should be used for eMail servers and groupware solutions in Bundestag. But for the parliamentarians it would be much better to stay on Windows.
Seems like one of Linux's biggest problems again: It's not as good as Windows on the desktop.
Re:They can't afford it (Score:5, Insightful)
I shouldn't feed the trolls, but ...
Well, Windows doesn't require any less maintenance ... except when you run it on a single desktop. But Windows Server really require a lot of maintenance (as do Sun, HP-UX, ...). Theres no real difference here ... of course you can run a windows server unmaintaned, but then it will ... well, let's say "open".
"Stuff is known to break when you hit it with other heavy stuff" Nothing new here... every non-journaled FS breaks when not unmounted correctly (besides, it never lost so much data on me, but that might have been luck).
So you don't like ReiserFS? How about XFS? Thats definitely not Beta and has been used for years in IRIX now ... (besides, reiserfs has definitely been in productive years for quite some time as well, but never mind)
Which drawbacks would that be? The one you mentioned before? No ... ext3 is journaled, so it doesn't break so badly, when not unmounted ...
I'll just skip the part that has has no whatsoever arguments. it is left as an exercise to the reader.
Doesn't ext3 still statically-allocate inodes? (Score:4, Insightful)
XFS can create inodes on the fly if you run out.
AFAIK, Reiser and XFS both have tremendous speed advantages over ext3 as well.
I've only installed Red Hat 7.2 a couple of times, but it suffers from the same problem as SUSE-Reiser in that it places the file system driver in a module in the initrd.
I much prefer the SGI install "shim" for Red Hat which has compiled XFS in the kernel. I like having a kernel that includes the filesystem support - putting it in a module is just a stupid idea. Any distribution should have its native file system compiled into the kernel, no questions asked.
Red Hat's big reason for not adopting a JFS earlier was the lack of userland repair utilities. I think that they really shafted both the Linux community and SGI, who has released a great and much-needed product. With Red Hat's support, XFS might be in the Linus kernels by now.
Quick translation of Sibold's response (Score:2)
"The only thing you can achieve by supporting this campaign is to publically discriminate against us by accusing our products and services of being undemocratic and an obstacle to democracy."
and
"What does a decision for or against an operating system have to do with 'democratic rules'? Open Source programs [...] are not by definition a guarantee for free competition, just like the decision to use my company's products is not or was not an 'undemocratic decision'."
Disclaimer: I don't know how accurate IDG's Swedish version is.
Re:Translation ... (Score:5, Informative)
i address you with this open letter in your function as the first signers of the werk21 ( the originators of the campaign ) campaing www.bundestux.de. With some astonishment i noticed that you share the opinion that ".. the introduction of a free operating system in the german bundestab ( the german parliament ) would be a necessary signal for reasons of competitve policy, national policy and democratic reasons."
In your declaration you claim that it is necessary to use democratic rules in the use of IT as well and you conclude that therefore ".. it would almost be the duty of a democratic country to use free software".
I conclude from that, that a country that does not use Linux must be undemocratic or at least does not fulfill its democratic duties.
Well, there may be understandable pragmatic reasons to vote for the use of open source software, though you will understand that from my point of view i have equally understandable pragmatic reasons to think that better reason exist to suggest the use of Microsoft products for the Bundestag.
But what does the decision for or against a operating system have to do with "democratic rules" or "duties of a democratic country" ?
Open source software is, as you mention, not in itself a guarantee for free competition, as well as a decision for products from my company ( Microsoft ) at this time, as well as in the past, is not and must not be a "undemocratic" decision. As the first signers you pressure members of the parliament to create real competition by making a decision for open source software as the only alternative.
What you do with your support for this campaign is a public discrimination of our products ( Microsofts) and services to be a hinderance ? to democracy. As my 1300 co-workers in germany feel with such claims, i was able to learn from numerous e-mails. The impact this has for our partners, uncounted small and medium-sized software companies and with our clients, who do not feel limited in their understanding of democracy, i can only imagine.
Therefore i apell to you: Let us, in the interest of a best solution for the staff of the parliament, return to a pragmatic discussion. I dont mean with that, that a discussion is only pragmatic if it results in a decision for microsoft products. It should though, be based on an assessment of cost and ability of the products and services in the light of the needs of the users.
yours sincerely,
Kurt Siebold, Microsoft Germany
Good translation (Score:2, Informative)
Microsoft deserves the back lash, since they claimed GPL is undemocratic. The attack dog they sent out just bit them in the ass. MS could have avoided this stupid line of arguments if they stayed away from phrases like "undemocratic, unamerican" in their marketing battle against open source. The worse part about this whole thing, is it may escalate much further and digress to a completely non-technical socio-political level. At that point, MS won't be able to win the argument, because it turns into movement and religion. There's nothing like fear to motivate a large group of people into action. I wouldn't be surprised if the arguments get more ugly and MS gets beaten up.
Re:Translation ... (Score:3, Interesting)
BUT then one of the members of parliament made a few comments on how to "decide" the best software. People would have thought, hmm, sounds interesting. UNTIL you figure out what is going on in the background. You see while this member of parliament is working for the state he was actually receiving steady income from a Microsoft solution provider. He said, but I am working for that company 1 day a month. (BTW his income was some absurd amount for 12 days of work)
While the parliament did not understand what was going on the IT industry did. As a result the LINUX community went on the offensive and declared war! (right so!) They had to do something otherwise the members of parliament would make a decision that seemed "democractic" when in fact it was not.
Hence why I am annoyed at this Microsoft Yahoo and his calls for "democracy" and doing everything correctly!!!!
Re:.. XML Rules (Score:4, Funny)
<doc gen='OfficeYP' style='KndsJHNs7yu3'>
<1 alt='Heading'>JKMDShsdlkD32u9ou2ohHDJISjkds8765 8GY</1>
<2 alt='Body'>kjdshBHDSiki7sdgw3ioewrq9hIJHSi9e3bn dfweidhjhjdfksIKGHDSIJ2e9quyi</2>
</doc>
</ms>
Re:Ha! (Score:2)
If you were a government then it would probably be wise to be suspicious of any proprietary software. Then be even more suspicious of any such software which originates from outside your own country...
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
I find this statement very funny, since there are many pseudo-freedoms and pseudo-rights in the US that aren't freedoms or rights at all once you have a closer look at them.
But that's an ongoing discussion whenever Americans comment on those "communist" German ideas of democracy and vice-versa, so I'm not wanting to begin yet another flame-war on this.
Just want to say: To each his own. I'm quite happy with the "pseudo-democracy" here in Germany, far happier with many of the things going on in the US (especially right now) when it comes to democratic values...
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2, Interesting)
Why "pseudo"? Just because we don't make the looser of an election president doesn't make a democracy "pseudo" (Sorry, couldn't resist).
The differences in IT between the US and the german market are quite subtle but strong. There is more technical competence at the reseller level and we have therefor fewer consulting companies.
Espescially the price isn't that much important here as in the US. Trust in the reseller or manufacturer on the other hand is more important. If you've done a good job you usually get the next deal too, even if you're more expensive (up to certain level). Companies and government agaency prefer to make the deal with someone they know.
CU, Martin
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
German: "Will you stop mentioning the War?"
Basil: Well, you started it.
German: No, we did not!
Basil: Yes, you did. You invaded Poland!
Notice the subtle shift from the current topic to coocoo-land?
-
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
Things are good here, and with that comes APATHY. I dont dislike the German govt. in the least. It works for you and it works well, the German people have shown throught history they NEED to be LED, That is OK. It really is for the Germans. I was speaking from an information point, 90% of ALL Americans think if you have a Democratic society you have the same freedoms as here, they do not understand we are Unique in our Unconditional Freedom of Speech and other Inalienable rights guarenteed under the constitution that cannot be revoked without a large amount of bloodshed. I am curious however what situations you speak of ? Increased airline security or the DCMA, that will be struck down soon enough just as the COPA was.
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
I base that on the fact that the United States of America was the FIRST, MODERN democracy, It has remained unchanged for 220 years, not democracy with a king, not a republic (our definitions differ on this so ill leave it at that)
Germany and most all of Europe (UK being exceptional in this respect) Has been doing it for less than 60 year, many of those govt set up under Allied Rule(UK Included,
The Apathy that plagues this nation has little to do with a "Misguided sendse of cultural superiority" That singular item has more to do with our poor performance in the last 50 years on a Global stage. APATHY that is prevelant in this country comes from a Middle Class that make more money and owns more land than certainly anywhere in europe or elsewhere IN GERNERAL. Fat, and Content , these are the problems that lead to PATHETIC Voter turnout, Did you know only half of the registered voters bothered in the presidential election ?
The United States has been a Very Rich nation for a long while, without a war on our soil for over 125 years. Comfort, also has something to do with the apathy prevalant here. I dont want things to be any different on a socio-econoic scale than they are , but what I would like is fellow citizens that actually give a shit and do something about it even if I dont agree with them.
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
> over 125 years.
You keep bringing this up, what's its relevance to the point(s) you're trying to make? For the record, major contributors to America's wealth were its richness in resources and the constant influx of immigrants with tireless work ethics. The lack of wars is due in no small part to the scarcity of international borders to nations of similar size. This was achieved by usurping the land of the natives without any serious resistance.
Again, for the record, several European nations have pined for those lofty goals (i.e. resource richness, large workforce, few bordering foes) throughout the period of America's statehood. But alas, the natives resisted more forcefully, not understanding the full benefits of large-nationhood and homogenized language and values.
-
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
That is EXACTLY the point Im tring to make. We have more than most places in the world, as a result we take things for granted, I am 30 years old and have land about 100 acres, Much of my family has the same or greater at my age, LAND in itsef , not to mention the resources contained (namley coal and oil on mine) , For some joe smoe 30 year old, paticuarly unexceptional in most aspects to have what I do is pretty uncommon overseas, (Europe, UK, etc.) NOW, not the value of that, forget that for a moment, but having what I do tend to make ME, Apathetic at times, they were going to build high dollar housing allotment near some of my property, I thought , who CARES, My land will still be there unmolested, then I thought hey itll probably raise the value, it did, but it made a pristine part of where I live look like beverly hills, when I ride my motorcycles there or shoot my guns they COMPLAIN !, GUESS WHAT Its a RURAL AREA ! Now Im pissed, but can do nothign partly due to my Apathy, If I tried I could have stopped it.
THAT my Friend is my point, and it does go to the point of the original article. Things are DIFFERENT here and in Germany, what is important to you is not neccesarily important to us and vice-verse. The POINT of this thead a it spun off was We, In the United States, have the power to do nearly anything we want with regards to changing every law on the books, we are typically just too, "fat and Happy" to give a shit. I dont know how things are at a local level of goverment in Germany now. But in the states, a town of say 25,000 people, is litteraly RUN by probably less that 50 individuals, NOT because there is room for no more voices, not because of some unssen elite ruling class, NOBODY CARES to RUN FOR OFFICE !, An intelligent person with a clean background (not an axe-murderer) can pretty much pick an office and run with a DAMM good chance of winning it give ANY effort.
The saddest part is we have freedoms and abilities to change any law we choose, Unfortunatley most choose to do NOTHING.......
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
-the "mindset is different"--how?
-usability not important--how? As an aside, the "form follows function" school of design was born in Germany. The US prefer the "mine is bigger than yours" approach.
-pushing something on them isn't going to fly--what on earth do you mean?
Overall, I'd rate the entropy of this post at 95 on a scale of 0 to 100.
-
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
Germans, are typically speaking very detail oriented, as well very quality concious, and in all more technically astute. This has been my experience, I am 1/2 German and lived with a Prussian stepfather my whole life, I have traveled to Germany in youth and recently, extensivly, and entertained German clients in business dealings. So Im not talking out my ass, I actually am familiar with the "mindset" I actually would probably fall more into this than many of my American contemporaries.
I did NOT say usbablity was not important to you, I said, It may not be, trying to make a point to my american fellows that what we find important you may not, and trying to shove something down your throat geared to our market is not a good idea.
Yeah, mine is bigger than yours, Ill agree with that assesment of the American philosiphy on a products marketablity.
What I also reffered to, OK, in say about 85 , how many german computers were on the market and popular ? Ok now remeber back and look at the computers in the american market ? Were they meant to fill the same requirments ? No, Were they meant so any moron could use it , ? no....
Were they fuctional ? Absolutley, How long dod you hang on to CPM ? Longer than here, why ? It was better , not marketed better, just better to a point.
We have different needs, some cultural some a different way of approaching problems. The Germans, in business at least , make a decison based on the merits of a product than the marketing behind it. This is a good thing, why has this whole thread been taken as a troll ? Beacuse I said pseudo-democratic ?
If you read the original post what it quite clearly states to an American (its intended reading audience) is OUR need are NOT the SAME as YOURS. If that is untrue, please tell me and we can shove all the crap software that was designed for the american marketplace down your throats. No ? Why not ? OH, wait, ther German requirments, and need, as well as percetions of what important in a business and computer applicationa redifferent, imagine that.....
Re:If you havent been there..... (Score:2)
Mainly because the original post was extremely unclear in meaning. Here's an example:
> OK, in say about 85, how many german computers were on the market and popular ? Ok now remeber
> back and look at the computers in the american market?
I have no idea if you mean that there were many popular German computers, or few. The answer certainly isn't self-evident. All I know is that every kid in the early to mid 80s in Germany craved first a C64, then an Amiga. Not terribly German AFAIK. German computer manufacturers were mainly in the minicomputer and mainframe business, IIRC.
Anyway, I'm German but have lived for the last 15 years in Australia and the US, so I can tell you from experience that Germans and Americans are more alike than different. Germans (used to) hate to buy on credit, they value education and the arts, and they speak German, not English. Other than that, the similarities are striking: both are pathologically self-important, both pine for a house on their own piece of land, both love cars, both work too hard for not enough money. The German love for quality is either a myth, or dying fast, because I haven't seen any more quality conscious Germans (at the production end) than Americans. Sure, both like BUYING quality, but if it's lacking, all they do is whine. Incidentally, the similarity is hardly accidental, considering the percentage of German ancestry in the US.
-
Re:Closed source (Score:2)