Countries Ponder: GNU/Linux vs. Microsoft 437
koody writes: "IDG has an overview of how many countries are getting drawn into the debate over the relative merits of using open source software rather than Microsoft Corp.'s Windows applications. Seems like many countries would be slowly moving towards the open source community, while a few still pledge allegiance to Microsoft."
Many countries are poor (Score:2, Insightful)
Even for richer countries, open source is attractive because it means the money that would've gone into software purchases can go into other projects.
This Is Not A War (Score:1, Insightful)
this is so stupid. People will use whatever software that best fits their needs..choosing one thing simply because of some set belief that one is superior is dumb and p0intless.
All I care about is the research (Score:5, Insightful)
But I do care when government sponsored research into software is used by companies to make money. Last I checked, I didn't give Sun/MS/et all my tax dollars to make them richer. I want that research GPL'ed so that I know its available, that I, as a tax payer who paid for the R&D gets the benifits, and that it can be made even better by the world (and thus can help my government/business/etc).
Tax dollars should not buy Microsoft products (Score:3, Insightful)
If an Open Source option is available, tax money would be better spent using/improving those products, that benefit all, instead of a single organization declared to be a monopoly by the U.S. DOJ.
Mozilla 1.0 Turns the Tide (Score:3, Insightful)
I honestly feel that I may be able to recommend open source software to non-geeks in the near future. I'm using OpenOffice and Mozilla and both are holding up well -- indeed OpenOffice is less annoying than MSOffice 2000.
I think if UnitedLinux and Red Hat can just make that final turn into providing MacOSX like reliability then I will start recommending Linux and Macs and tell everybody to avoid Windows like the plague it is.
Sooooooo close
Options. (Score:3, Insightful)
Uh, there are more than two options in the world of operating systems. I'm assuming that everyone here has heard of small companies like Apple and Sun, who seem pretty effective at marketing their own OSes.
(Yeah, I know, they both fund some open source efforts too. But this whole "everything is either Microsoft or free-as-in-lint" dichotomy is too simple for anyone but retarded schoolchildren.)
--saint
Microsoft sees the writing on the wall (Score:3, Insightful)
Because M$ has never been known as a service company it really has no model to fit into the Open Source idea. Since it has no direct way of benefiting, other than stealing code for use in their own products, they have to fight against it's upsurgence
M$ will move into the arena of small commercial packages, proprietary embedded systems and OS's and will fight tooth and nail the entire way. Of course the argument that they stabalized and helped build the current computer industry is partially correct, but had open standards been used to begin with (and not the embrace and extend crap) we might have a much more competetive landscape.
The Real Issue.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Microsoft comes in a pretty package, and is so widely used, that someone in a given setting is bound to have experience with it.
It's not that open source is or isn't better than MS, but which one gives the user (not the IT guys) a warm fuzzy.
Re:This Is Not A War (Score:2, Insightful)
I do agree that to compare this to a real war is a bit extreem.
Government administrators: It is your duty. (Score:4, Insightful)
Government administrators should note that it is their duty to insure that all government work be done on completely open systems. The citizens and taxpayers of a democracy must have full access to all documents, even 40 or a hundred years from now. There is NO room in a democracy for proprietary, hidden ways of doing things.
Anyone else notice.... (Score:2, Insightful)
No monoculture is a good thing. (Score:4, Insightful)
What we need is not a better monoculture, but a polyculture (is that a word?) In a polyculture, one company (MS) can't create a format that's impossible for anyone else to implement properly and expect it to be widely used, because users will EXPECT interoperability. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot. By the same token, in a polyculture you have many different products that foster true innovation. I mean ... as much as office sucks, some parts of it have been truly innovative (some parts of Outlook, Excel.)
Hell, in a monoculture half the time software isn't compatible with its previous version (think Office 95 vs. office 97.)
I wouldn't want any government to mandate *one* operating system. Instead, I think that governments should mandate operating system diversity. That's the way to get true, robust reliability and ultimately save money.
Re:Supreme Court and electionb (Score:1, Insightful)
Read the Constitution. It's called an Electoral College. It ensures equal representation among the seperate states.
Did you notice how much won states by something like 2-1?
Remove your head from your ass and stop listening to Dan Rather. You fucking idiot.
You are confused (Score:1, Insightful)
The US is not actually a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. Gore even agreed: he campaigned with the electoral system in mind. Want to change it? Fine. Just don't do it to undo the results of an election that did not go the way you want it to. Change the system before the next election if you want to. Only losers play the game under the rules and then whine to change the rules after they lose.
Developing countries? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As long as DUBYA and his RIGHT WING WACKOS (Score:3, Insightful)
In all seriousness it is true that the Republicans do favor business more than the Democrats. But that does NOT mean that they don't like open source software. How Bush decided to influence the Microsoft case has nothing to do with his opinion on Open Source Software. Nor is the inverse true, Democrates don't all use Open Source Software...
Now if you believe that any political party doesn't listen strongly to their big political backers then you are a fool. Every party does! The Republicans are no different with this issue.
As far as BIG CAMPAIGNS... anyone who runs for President is going to have a huge campaign.
As far as the SUPREME COURT... they really didn't decide the election, Gore just took their decision and gave up. The outcome would have been the same no matter which way the decision came down. It just would have taken longer.
Actually, quite the opposite is true. (Score:3, Insightful)
But I do care when government sponsored research into software is used by companies to make money.
Actually, quite the opposite is true. In the real world, real people have to charge real money for the products they peddle. Most GPL'ed software comes out of government labs [like JPL], or educational institutions [like MIT, or CMU] that are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. If Dubyah and Congress really gave a rat's ass, they'd require all government funded software to be released under the BSD license, not the GPL.
Re:GMAFB (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that $$$ I'm *not* spending on development can be spent on more employees, admins, maybe even a developer just to get in the pieces I need.
IT Depts usually do not *make* money, they *save* companies money, increase efficiency, and safeguard/provide data. Just because I don't *sell* a product doesn't mean that my *service* isn't just as valuable - or just as marketable.
Re:Apple not effective, Sun is (Score:3, Insightful)
As per hardware company with an OS on top: Sun has Sparc + Solaris, and weren't going to continue Solaris for x86 *until* a surprise release of v9 for x86.
Apple has Mac + OS X, and *do* have an up to date Darwin for x86 though it's limited through driver support to a select hardware platform.
Neither is trying particularly hard to push their OSes without their hardware; both have x86 for development and testing purposes.
As per wanting the Mac OS: How do you compare Java, a runtime, programming language, and a set of libraries, with an OS? Apple has Cocoa, otherwise known as Objective C, and it doesn't run *everywhere*, but it does run on Solaris 8, Windows 2000 (x86), and Mac OS X.
So what are you trying to point out? That Sun supports more platforms with it's variation of cross platform computing? That Macs are more hardware oriented than Sun? That x86 support is the end all and be all of 'effective'?
The left hand should speak to the right hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Austria:
One of Microsoft's flagship government customers, the Federal Ministry of the Interior in Austria, is the first government body in Europe to become a member of Microsoft's Shared Source Initiative. As part of the program, the Austrian government is allowed access to the Windows XP source code. Program benefits, according to Microsoft, include better understanding of the technical underpinnings of the operating system, better protection against security vulnerabilities and a resource for writing custom applications.
*blink* Wha...? *blink*
Microsoft admits - in full view of the world - that having access to the source improves the security and useability of an Operating System. Didn't some two bit think tank outfit just say that having access to the source was bad? [slashdot.org]
That's a keeper if there ever was one - Microsoft just made the case for Free Software in spite of itself.
Soko
Re:Many countries are poor (Score:2, Insightful)
The real reason's to use Open Source are manyfold, and being cheap generally draws folks in, but if a poor country were to believe that they could get the software for free and have a cheap implementation, they are in for a nice surprise.
Re:The Real Issue.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft comes pre-installed on new computers, and is so widely used, that someone in a given setting is bound to have experience with it.
The pretty package probably has no real impact. Even the quality and ease-of-use are secondary to locking up all new PC sales with 'doze preinstalled.
Re:All I care about is the research (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL's great, don't get me wrong, but I don't think it's appropriate for government research. That research should be totally free (beer *and* speech), not copylefted.
Re:Tax dollars should not buy Microsoft products (Score:4, Insightful)
Please...
Like it or not, years ago M$ was the logical choice for software. And, like it or not, M$ has advanced, through a common user interface, the state of desktop computing.
Now...that situation may be changing, with the advent of new open source tools and applications that actually work and can be used by the average office worker. BUT, an entity the size of (name your fave countries government) cannot change overnight.
Give it time.
Re:This Is Not A War (Score:2, Insightful)
We're all creatures of habit: it's comfortable, it's easy, it's the path of least resistance. It can take a lot of time and effort to change even one individual's behavior, to say nothing of a collective group.
Businesses, especially large ones, are usually slow-moving creatures, especially when it comes to deploying IT. From their perspective, they've seen a company (Microsoft) that's been basically responsive to their needs, and making the right noises when it comes to improving their products (re: Microsoft's Trustworthy Computing [microsoft.com])
Change, when and if it happens, usually starts slowly, and gathers momentum as it goes. Right now, there are two good reasons for looking for alternatives to Microsoft's hegemony:
1. Economy: if I can save a buck (or two, or several thousand) by choosing your product instead of someone else's, you're going to get my attention. Of course, you'll have to demonstrate that your product works as well, if not better, than your competitor's.
2. Security: the less I have to worry about hackers, viruses and all the 10,000 innocent mistakes regular people make when they use computers, the happier I'll be. Do I expect 100% perfect security? Of course not... but I'll sleep a lot easier knowing that I have less to worry about.
One thing to keep in mind, though (and this is where it might look like people 'worship at the altar of Microsoft') and that is the simple fact that people don't like change! How many of us can recount stories of users with that 'deer-in-the-headlights' look when faced with new features (a change of icons, even a different color scheme on a Windows desktop)?
From this not-so-newbie's perspective, it looks like we're in for some interesting times...
Crap (Score:3, Insightful)
"Snapshots from the OS front" is actually a precise description of the content.
Re:The left hand should speak to the right hand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting
Re:All I care about is the research (Score:5, Insightful)
The Internet as we know it would probably not be the inexpensive and vast resource that it is today were it not for BSD licensed software (Berkley's TCP/IP stack springs to mind).
I want that research GPL'ed so that I know its available, that I, as a tax payer [...] gets the benifits, and that it can be made even better by the world (and thus can help my government/business/etc).
All of the demands that you have listed can just as easily be met by the BSD. The fact that Microsoft used Berkley's TCP/IP stack didn't make it vanish from the face of the Earth.
Like I said, I prefer to use the GPL license, but I'm not so righteous that I demand everyone else do so as well. Free software is supposed to be about MORE choice, not LESS.
Peru not moving to monoculture. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Backlash to M$ actions (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually certain versions of Office 2K has Activation...after 50 uses of the software, it will shut down and tell you to activate the software. From what I understand it is easier to fool this version of activation than Office XP's version, but it's activation nonetheless.
It's actually Office 97 that you don't have to activate. Funny, it's very hard to find that at the computer fairs nowadays...;-)
Microsoft made its monopoly on easy-to-pirate software. If anything, they should loosen, rather than tighten, their "security". Get them another raftload of more hooked users.
set irony mode off.
Re:This Is Not A War (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:All I care about is the research (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong. Companies can benefit from GPLd software by using it.
Many, many more companies are users of software than are publishers of software.
Re:GMAFB (Score:3, Insightful)
Those of us that have actually moved out into the world realize this. Most "code for profit" companies actually depend a great deal on code and modules that they can't merely steal and treat as their own property.
To most coding shops, dealing with the LGPL is no more burdensome than dealing with Microsoft licenses.
Open source is not a monoculture (Score:4, Insightful)
There is a ton of variety in the world of GNU/Linux with a multitude of different vendors competing for the attention of Linux users. It is, in fact, the monoculture that Microsoft causes its products to exist in (by making interopability as difficult as possible) that is at the root of the discontent we are seeing around the world that is shifting the momentum away from Microsoft.
In fact, open source is the opposite of what you argue. By following standards, open source guarantees its users they will continue to have choices.
Security is more important to governments (Score:2, Insightful)
I live in Brazil and Conectiva [conectiva.com.br], leader in the (tiny) local market of Linux, got a great contract with the Navy to develop VPNs and things like that. The militaries wanted to make sure the software they were installing didn't have any secret tricks planted by alien governments (yes, these guys build a career out of paranoia feelings).
In some cases OSS can be cheaper, if you can pick in the internet a robust project with many contributors from around the world. But in other cases it can be more expansive, eg, if you can buy a closed source software off-the-shelf but choose to develop and open source program.
Re:All I care about is the research (Score:4, Insightful)
BSD and Proprietary licences ensure works or derivatives BECOME or STAY UNFREE.
Wrong. Derivatives of BSD may or may not be free, but the original works will always be free. You might not gain from someone else's development, but you never lose anything.
Using public money to create works or derivatives that become or stay unfree is ridiculous. [..] It really pisses me off to pay for something twice. Once by taxation for the reasearch to create a resource and again for that same resource at retail.
When your tax dollars are spent developing software that's licensed under the BSD, you will always be able to use it for free. You contend that because 1% of a commercial software product contains government-produced source code, the entire package must be free. I'm sorry, but THAT is ridiculous.
Microsoft uses the BSD TCP/IP stack for free, then sells it to us.
You aren't paying for the TCP/IP stack - you're paying for everything else added in. If all you wanted was Berkeley's TCP/IP stack you could have gotten it for free yourself - BECAUSE IT WILL ALWAYS BE FREE.
I release my projects under the GPL because I choose to. And that is how it should be - a matter of choice. This blind, raving, zealotry that so many GPL advocates seem to posess is something we could all do without.
Re:All I care about is the research (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's hypothesize further:
The US government develops a new communication protocol stack. This New Protocol (NP) has some great features: Complete point to point encryption. Tight integration of video, voice and data. Cache based compression allowing small key bits to trigger the replay of locally cached data sets. The protocol stack is released under the BSD license.
Microsoft embraces NP and renames it MSN/NP. Microsoft substitutes a modified version of the encryption and their own proprietary cached data set. Microsoft owns 95% of the desktop space. Microsoft leverages the popularity of MSN/NP content into control of most of the server market. AOL must license the technology or risk loosing all their customers. Macromedia ceases to exist. Apple turns over 90% of their profits to Microsoft just to keep Microsoft from abandoning the Mac platform. etc...
MEANING: The BSD license can be embraced and extended. We receive no benefit for our tax dollars with a BSD license.
The GPL is a poison pill, but only for companies trying to control a monopoly share of a market. The GPL, applied to software produced at taxpayer expense, insures companies can use the software without giving them the ability to exploit the software, as the BSD license allows.
I am not a GPL zealot. I am a taxation zealot. This is MY MONEY we're talking about.
Don't like the GPL's viral nature? Then write your own damn software.