France Considers Open Source 370
joestar writes "Reuters today announced that the French Government is considering Open Source Software adoption as an excellent alternative to reduce their IT costs. A cost reduction of several hundred millions dollars is planned by replacing proprietary licenses by Open-Source solutions. 'Microsoft must return to being one supplier to the state among others', declared a government Minister. France's culture, agriculture and finance ministries had already signed deals with Mandrakesoft for first Linux deployment tests. After Munich's new move in Germany, it seems that Open Source Software is currently a major movement in old Europe."
I think France got it (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that is what the GPL is about. Saving money&time in development, making money in sales & support (of course I probably wouldn't want France supporting my KMissle Launch Control System), and giving back to the world an improvement on what they borrowed.
Not just use - develop with open tools (Score:5, Insightful)
Open source gives free tools to everybody. World class, kick ass tools. Do you know how much something as good as FFTW would cost to buy? More than my car! This lets you focus on using those tools to create value in the market - sucks to be in the tool making business, but overall it represents a boon. This is why so many people in the industry have problems; the value is not IN the IT, but what the IT enables you to DO.
Re:Not just use - develop with open tools (Score:4, Interesting)
After 30-40 years seems like maybe, just maybe, some people are finally catching on. You measure cost inside IT. You measure value outside of IT.
Open source gives free tools to everybody. World class, kick ass tools.
This is slightly contrived, but the same principles apply to Open Source software. The French language is free. Anyone is free to use it. Now if the French were unwilling to make any expenditures the language would stay free but become whatever time and the Germans or whatever happen to make of it.
To oversimplify, the software is free but an opinion (that matters) is not.
Just try to have an opinion of what OpenBSD should be/do.
Compare a whim of Linus versus IBM's agenda regarding Linux.
Don't let the apparent low cost fool you. It can be had for cheap, but it is really exorbitantly expensive software that is affordable. For a ridiculously large range of definitions of affordable.
Re:Not just use - develop with open tools (Score:4, Interesting)
This is an obvious troll, but I'm going to reply anyway. What can you do with VS that you can't do with kdevelop? I've had considerably less problems with kdevelop (even ugly versions of old...) then I ever have with VS. OK, I've said in previous posts and I'll say again, I'm no code guru, but, I've had a MUCH easier time with GNU utils then anything from Redomd...
Re:Make a project (Score:3, Funny)
Open as in source. (Score:4, Insightful)
All those products they mentioned are not cedible because they don't have license costs (which btw some of them have) or are not copyrighted (which they most definitely are), but because of the extensive testing and through code checking these products receive by the very fact that they are open source.
I guess it's time we stop giving the anology of open as in beer or open as in speech. We should start using "open as in source". which I think most aptly describe these products than the beer (mmm beer..ok ok back to issue) or speech.
Re:Open as in source. (Score:4, Funny)
MMMMM. Nothing like a tall, cold glass of source code after mowing the lawn on a hot day.
Re:I think France got it (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I think France got it (Score:5, Insightful)
Of couse we all know that you don't need a license to use software, just to redistrubute it, so those EULAs aren't really licences at all. They are just notices that say you have no licence to distribute, as well as an attempt to get you to agree to a bunch of things that probably aren't legaling binding anyway, since EULAs are not valid contracts.
Open source licences on the other hand are real distribution licences. But the only cost is when you want to redistribute derivitives works, in which case, the cost is the source to those derivative works. In the standard user's perception of "software license" there is no cost.
Just splitting hairs
Re:I think France got it (Score:2, Funny)
MySql returned 1 row(s):
[DorkFactor]
99.99
Re:I think France got it (Score:2, Insightful)
Let me tell you, nothing promotes the good image of United States and american companies and goods as a bunch of ultra-right religious fanatics that scream on top of their lungs: "Who is not with us is our enemy!"
Re:I think France got it (Score:2, Funny)
We french persons are good people!!
Re:I think France got it (Score:2, Insightful)
Leaving you standing strong where?
Ok, if you're a Brit you might have a point.
If you're American, you don't know history. In 1940 when France was occupied, America was trying hard to keep out of the war and the Naziesque ideas were in fact rather popular amongst the rich and powerful.
In any case, signing armistice
Re:I think France got it (Score:3)
Pardonnez-nous, s'il vous plais. [Je ne parl pas francaise, so please forgive my horrible spelling and writing and grammar and such.
Both sides of the hate are getting annoying. Sorry this person is such a danged unevolved monkey. Sorry you had to see this side of the 'states. We're not all butt-munches!
Heh. Maybe as punishment for bein
Re:I think France got it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I think France got it (Score:5, Informative)
Um, what the hell are you talking about?
First off, France had been invaded, its supposedly foolproof Maginot Line had been completely circumvented, and the population was fleeing before the German advance. Sure, they should have planned better, but at that point, what else was there to do? The later collaborationist actions of the Vichy government were dispicable, but to go on actively fighting would have been bloody ridiculous.
And 'standing strong with us'? You admit with the reference to the Revolutionary War that you're an American. So how hard were the Americans fighting against the Germans in 1940?
Oh, right. They weren't in until Pearl Harbor, a year and a half later. (In fact, Prescott Bush, whose last name you may find familiar, had his assets seized after the Americans entered the war because comparies in which he had an interest had funded Nazi Germany [straightdope.com].)
Re:I think France got it (Score:4, Insightful)
Single-handedly? I seem to remember seeing an old picture of Saddam warmly shaking the hand of a certain war^H^H^Hdefense secretary.
A better reason to think that France is evil is that the French helped shelter the génocidaires in the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, in which [liberation.fr] over a million people died [wikipedia.org].
Well, shoot. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, shoot. (Score:2)
Re:Well, shoot. (Score:2)
or
I could be wrong about the subject-adjective agreement for "Ouvert(e)" though, "Source" is femenin, "Code" is masculin. Typicly you add an "e" for adjectives of femen
Re:Well, shoot. (Score:4, Informative)
Libre in french (i'm french I know) means free as in speech.
Free as in beer is "gratuit", which is where the english word gratuity comes from. A freebie.
the advantage of "source libre" is that the english speaking world can understand it perfectly well.
Re:Well, shoot. (Score:5, Funny)
KFG
Ya know what Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
"In fact, open-source software is not free. It is very expensive because it shifts the cost to maintenance, services, integration and training," Microsoft France chief Christophe Aulnette said.
The scary part is, I highly agree with that statement. Price alone is not a factor for people going to open source, perhaps I should enlighten you people.
1) The upgrade trap, perhaps if people could upgrade on their schedule instead of yours.
2) The whole OPEN SOURCE part, or if I need a feature added or changed, I'll find a developer to do just that...
Yes, to the Slashdot community, I know you all know the best reasons for going open source, however I'm worried that MS doesn't
Re:Ya know what Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft likes to say "Linux is free like a puppy". I say, yes and Microsoft is like the purebred (add the 'b' word here if you wish) that costs a lot upfront and has congenital defects from generations of inbreeding. Sure, she is pretty, but shie is high strung you will spend way too mutch time and money fighting infections. Give me a mutt anyday; the mutt is not only cheap to aquirer, but more robust and better tempered. Saving money up front is only the start of your savings, the real savings is found in the maintenance costs.
Re:Ya know what Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
My experience has always been that MS servers are a huge pain in the butt and expensive to keep licensed and running.
Linux and BSD servers much less so; they're not quite as stable and exploit-free as Novell servers or mainframes, but much better than Windows and much more flexible than any of them.
Re:Ya know what Microsoft? (Score:5, Interesting)
Maintenence . . . . you have forced upgrades, required reboots (translates to downtime), and prohibitively expensive maintenance support costs.
Services . . . . I have yet to find Microsoft services capable of answering even the simplest of questions. For this I can pay a huge amount of money.
Integration . . . The key to any software integration project is the adherence to well-defined, published, and freely available standards. This is why the Internet works so well. This is why you can run SOAP and web services between competing vendors. This is why you can use XML-RPC and accomplish an amazing amount of integration. This is why EDI worked well in the transportation and distribution industry. This is one of the reasons OSI failed (standard costs were expensive).
The challenge with a Microsoft-centric solution is that it adheres to standards poorly if at all. And of course, like Cabletron (remember them, the networking company that eschewed standards for a proprietary management system) this will only be cost-effective in a single vendor solution.
Training costs for Microsoft are every bit as high as training costs for open source products. Many organizations don't train their users on Microsoft products, which is what Microsoft then uses as a training cost baseline.
If you have ever had to work with a reasonably complex Word document that someone else has created, you know what disaster this lack of training can be. Often it is easier to create a properly (?) structured Word document and paste in the contents rather than attempting to fix the original work.
In short, capital costs are lower, maintenance costs and schedules are business-driven instead of vendor-driven, services are better (would be difficult to be worse), integration is better, and training is a wash.
Another clear advantage with open source is that you can train your IS staff on principles and concepts instead of vendor-specifics. This means that when the next IT revolution hits, your staff will be in a position to take advantage of it.
It also means that your IS staff and business are insulated from capricious vendor changes that REQUIRE specialized and expensive training.
Re:Ya know what Microsoft? (Score:2)
However price alone should not be a decision in going open source. Rather weigh it with all the other factors and make a well-reasoned decision. For many who have
MS should make the customer the designer (Score:4, Insightful)
In the free software development the customer is also the designer, for the skilled ones, but why could not the customer also be the designer for the less skilled ones?
The reason that the free software development has been so successful is that the providers are also the customers and can continue develop the products. I'm not sure that MS has understood this simple fact yet.
MicroSoft should adopt to this idea, and in the long run they can become a very successful supplier of wanted software, designed by the customer for the customer.
not asking the customer what the customer want (Score:2, Insightful)
This is obvious in the
low quality documentation, if any,
configuration process,
usability
ongoing support
Business users are not going to continuously fight the 'geek needed to install and operate' mentality of open source software.
Re:not asking the customer what the customer want (Score:5, Insightful)
This is obvious in the
low quality documentation, if any,
The major OSS projects have third-party published books out.
configuration process,
Which is why a business would use a distribution instead of rolling their own.
usability
The big-name OSS projects meant for the end-user (i.e. KDE/GNOME/Mozilla-spawn) are very usable - they are just a bit different than the closed source competitors. I'd venture to guess somebody who hasn't seen any desktop before would learn an OSS desktop just as easily as a Windows one. Switching over to OSS couldn't be any worse than switching from Windows 3.1 to 95.
ongoing support
Businesses would buy a support contract.
Business users are not going to continuously fight the 'geek needed to install and operate' mentality of open source software.
Ditto with the support contract. (And since when has running a non-OSS shop been a walk in the park? You need competent IT staff, period.)
Re:MS should make the customer the designer (Score:4, Insightful)
The Joel on Software article yesterday pointed out that during MS's big growth leaps in the 80's and early 90's, the number of new PCs sold every year typically exceeded the entire installed base. Now that's no longer the case.
Because they rely primarily on OEM licenses for revenue, MS has to somehow artificially stimulate hardware upgrades in order to acheive acceptable growth without a major change in business model. (A change to what?, one wonders.)
The places where you're seeing movement to Open Source desktops are not coincidentally the places that tend to be most resistant to hardware upgrades. In the end, if MS withers, it'll probably be because users won't stomach Dell et al.'s reasonably low prices, rather than MS's own inflated ones.
Re:MS should make the customer the designer (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think you grasp the type of monopoly that MS has on most of the market.
First, they don't _need_ to care about their customers, as long as 85% (or whatever) of the OEM machines from Dell, HP, Gateway, that get sold to regular old consumers, they will have plenty of money.
A policy which will never work in the long run.
Most consumers don't understand or want anything customized, tha
Reuters: You Fail It! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's partly why the term "copyleft" is so dangerous and should be stamped out. It's absolutely vital that people realize that F/OSS is copyrighted and under the control of an individual, or group or a corporation. The strength of F/OSS comes from the underlying copyright and the fact that it enables us to control the code.
John.
Re:Reuters: You Fail It! (Score:2)
"Open Source" may not be a perfect term, because it doesn't distinguish between the right to jus
Re:Reuters: You Fail It! (Score:2)
OTOH, free and open source software could survive just fine in a would without copyright restrictions or DCMA type laws. Proprietary software could not. So in that sense, copy
Re:Reuters: You Fail It! (Score:4, Insightful)
Without some basis under which I can state that I control the code I write (the current incarnation of which is copyright) then you could just take it, I'd have no legal recourse, and there'd be no way for me to _force_ my code to be open.
The entire point of copyright is that it grants to the holder of the copyright the right to license the work and it prevents you from taking it without a license. So copyright is the bedrock for F/OSS. I use it to grant you the right to modify my software under certain conditions (namely that it remains "open"). Without copyright you can just walk off with it, start some closed-source company, make modifications and be done with it.
John.
We shall call it... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:We shall call it... (Score:2)
Eh... well you have to consider that I referred to a moment in American history that is a bit touchy. I really kind of wish I hadn't posted it. I don't think I took it as seriously as a lot of people did. That was a bit inconsiderate of me.
Ouvrez la source? - Mon Dieu! (Score:3, Funny)
Je jette le gant - Prepare to taste cold steel Monsieur Gates!
France Surrenders! (Score:2, Funny)
But that's just me.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The truth about the american military machine ww2 (Score:5, Interesting)
My parents generation fought ww2, on my mums side 5 kids, all of them signed up, their father, my grandad was torpedoes three fucking times and lived to tell the tale... he was a bosun on the murmansk run on oil tankers, he used to chew tobacco (can't smoke on tankers) and that's what eventually killed him, colostomy and bowel cancer.
Of his five children the eldest was a telegrapher, RN, was ordered to stay behind at the fall of singapore and report on the nips, was mia for 9 months and eventually made his own way overland to india, next eldest was another RN telegrapher (the radio shack was a prime target btw) my mum was a wren who was a plotter in devonport, plotted the d-day practices in which thousands of americans died through the sheer incompetence of their commanders, going to cut a long shit load of history short here, not much point going on about a thousand years of clanging swords with someone or other which is basically what english history is, let me tell you how WE see american military in first hand observations from ww2 (my father etc) through korea (before you lot went into nam properly) to the present day.
in 1943 when the british army couldn't even get a pair of boots and 20 rounds of ammunition to every soldier, the american military machine could get chocolates to every soldier, and all the boots they could wear and ammo they could carry, "over sexed, over paid, and over here" was a 1943 sentiment about americans here in the southwest training for d day, but EVERYONE was in absolute awe of american logistics.
Similarly, from 1943 through korea etc to present day, nobody ever thought american soldiers lacked courage.
While american logistics were awesome, most people rated american military hardware as sub-standard, when germany had tiger tanks you were running around in shermans, worst thing about a sherman was the motor, 2 stroke detroit diesel was NOISY bastard, made it real easy to shoot at... similarly because supply of bullets was never a problem american weapons and soldiering were much more automatic fire than semi automatic, times where supply chain breaks everyone shit themselves if americans on the flank, waiting for them to expend all ammo and then fall back.....
no, BY FAR commonest sentiment about american military machine was the soldiers were not as highly trained or versatile as ours (this is still true, simply because US military budget is so fucking huge we HAVE to be better at everything, on a per platoon basis) and american brass were by and large grandstanding assholes, just like we used to shoot in the back when going over the top in WWI....
americans go on patrol in iraq in armoured vehicles all toting fully automatic weapons and more importantly crew-few medium calibre automatic weapons, anything tougher than a columbine schoolkid pops up and you hunker down and call in an airstrike.... such tactics are inevitable when you have a HUGE military machine with awesome logistics and vast numbers of under trained cannon fodder troops.
british go on patrol in iraq in open backed landrover (4wd, a british "technical" really, often minus the 50 cal) response is very short ammunition conserving short bursts of 3 or 4 rounds at most, of not single shot mode, if it turns bad retreat and regroup, or die there, we just don't have that kind of air support or even heavy armour.... such tactics are inevitable when you have a small military machine with shite logistics (remember, we had to canniballise our biggest liner just to get troops to falklands, and she was built that way just in case too...) so every soldier must be a minimum of proficient at many tasks and bloody good at one or two.
same thing is true of bar fights, in american bar fights there is much pre fight posturing and strutting, like bears in some mating ritual, much opportunity for both to mutually cool it off without losing face according to some strange set of rules...
Re:History of surrender for loud mouthed americans (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh. Does the American police often use napalm bombardment from helicopters, then ? And do they often use army uniforms ?
Is losing still such a sore point to you, that you have to revise history to try to confuse the issue ? Kinda reminds me of the Soviet Union...
No matter, whether it was a police operation or a war, you lost anyway.
The joke would be funnier if it wasn't told every time someone mentions France.
Can anyone quote accurate statistics... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Can anyone quote accurate statistics... (Score:2)
As usual it's difficult to get statistics on client software, but web-servers are easy [securityspace.com]. securityspace.com keeps statistics on web server breakdown by top-level domain. Of course TLD isn't a great indicator of where a box is actually located, but to my knowledge it's the best we've got to
Re:Can anyone quote accurate statistics... (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, there are about 350,000 adult europeans afflicted with MS [vard.org]. By country it varies from between 5 and 150 cases per 100,000. Cultural and ethnic factors probably play a large role in this.
Isn't it obvious? (Score:5, Insightful)
Go Mandrakesoft! (Score:3, Insightful)
1) If France & Germany's governments become more patriotic & supportive toward Mandrake & SuSE respectively then perhaps they will be less inclined to pass silly laws to make open source difficult such as broad software patents etc. And, if it's already too late then maybe they will push the EU to dilute the silly laws over time so they don't affect open source.
2) If Mandrake are taken seriously by more businesses then they will have to increase their end of life from 2 years to at least 5 years or even 10 years (to compete with MS) for their enterprise releases. The short EOL is the one reason I can't use Mandrake on a mail server I am setting up, otherwise it would have been perfect.
3) We don't have a really major distro here in the UK so I can feel patriotic about France in the meantime.
Re:Go Mandrakesoft! (Score:5, Funny)
For example:
I, for one, welcome our new open-source overlords.
I, for one, welcome our new penguin overlords.
There. Now you know, hopefully you won't make the same mistake again
More info here [wikipedia.org]
Doesn't make sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Doesn't make sense. (Score:2)
As opposed to the completely fucked up US system. Jebus, give them some credit! At least they are making some kind of progress.
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Why is it considered news when some entity considers Linux? It's not news. It would be news if the decided to go with Linux, not if there considering it. Are they considering Microsoft as well? Yes. Then why isn't the story titled "France Considers Open Souce and Microsoft"?
Right now, I'm considering taking a shit, but it wouldn't be an actual event unless I took a shit.
I'm sure this will be marked as a troll or flamebait, but it's a valid point. I'm tired of reading articles about what some country or some city is considering. I don't care and I'm pretty sure that most people who read this site don't care either. Now when said country or city actually makes a fucking decision then that would be news and by all mean report it.
Re:Why? (Score:2)
I know that I'd want to know what happens in a head-to-head involving Mandrake vs. Microsoft, but somehow I don't think anything but a win for Mandrake will make the headlines.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Translation issue (Score:4, Insightful)
-----------------
"This will also help us sell our solutions to other governments," he said, adding that he believed the German, Israeli and Malasian governments also envisaged shifting to open-source software.
BINGO! We have a winner! Evil country A develops software for a fraction of the cost it would normally take in the closed-source land, sells it to Good Countries B through T and V through Z, and makes more money than they would have been able to otherwise.
--------------------
I think it is bad translation. "To sell" ("vendre" in french) could also mean "to convience" or "to promote", it does not mean necessary that money is involved.
Well, maybe France got one right (Score:3, Interesting)
I've not been a France fanboy for quite some time, but I'll have to grudgingly give them their due here, they're making a step in the right direction by not giving MS automatic license fees.
With a few more current government clients joining this wave, MS might actually become a company again instead of the software dictator it is now. It will have to compete for business. This could only help software. (I still laugh at Sun and MS's statement that software will be what people pay for, and hardware will be free. Duh. Hardware is what you can hold in your hand and has real costs. Software will be free, the service/maintenance of that software is where the money is)
Keyword: "Considering" (Score:4, Interesting)
Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Or, if the article is about GNU, why not say Free Software [gnu.org]?
Unless, of course, there is some advantage to creating confusion between the two that I am simply unaware of.
-Peter
Popularity and freedom -- two different goals. (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the open source movement pursues popularity and taking credit for the works of others is a convenient way to attain that goal without having to do the hard work of actually writing the licenses and defining the concepts that helped define and build our now 20-year-old community. Consider the GNU General Public License which was written well before the Open Source Initiative began and speaks of a different philosophy [gnu.org] than that which the open source movement speaks to. The OSI defined the terms of l
France already uses open source (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, I hear that it's got to the point where if you're planning a CMS project in Public-Sector-France-Land and you *don't* have a Zope-based product on your shortlist, questions are asked why... Corroborations, anyone?
EU VS US Trade War (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because Chirac complimented Bush about American hamburgers [kansascity.com] (3rd paragraph) at the G8 summit doesn't mean all is well between the two.
Re:EU VS US Trade War (Score:2)
Anyhow, you're absolutely right to point out the geopolitical implications. You could have also mentionned Chirac's attempts at getting more military might, getting the ability to produce weapons in the EU, space exploration... Basically, France's right-wing uses a "Realist" analysis, and this thing has been going on for a while. While the Truman doctrine defined the US's ability to intervene in the Middle-East, around the same time the French had decided they
this will be seen as an afront to capitalism (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:this will be seen as an afront to capitalism (Score:2)
Maybe it is for 5kr1p7 k1dd33z, but I think that France's legislature has better things to do than sticking it to The Man.
Re:this will be seen as an afront to capitalism (Score:2)
2. mandatory and costly MS upgrade cycles
3. proprietary lock in
4.piss off Bill Gates
You forgot:
5.- Get a kickass discount from MS.
And then:
6a.- Accept discount, tell OSS comunity to go hump or they shall taunt OSS again.
OR
6b.- Tell MS to piss off and get extra-strength number 4 (
They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2, Insightful)
While widescale windows site licenses may be expensive, the productivity lost in having to retrain all your users in the intimate details of office software surely makes up for the nominal co
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the cost of lock in - it can't be measured on short timerange, but having competition on the market is going to buy you, and the rest of the industry, a lot.
Going for Linux is a no-brainer at least for us europeans. It frees us from an oppressive US monopolist, creates local jobs and generally opens up new business opportunities because, well, Linux doesn't yet have all the software Windows has.
It's time to be a little bit patriotic, people! Asshats that can't learn the few Linux apps they need with a little bit of tutoring could just be fired (now there's a motivation that gets people moving), you should have the best minds working for you in the first place...
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:3, Insightful)
I love your post, and I love that I can do this:
Going for Linux is a no-brainer at least for us US-ians. It frees us from an oppressive US monopolist, creates local jobs and generally opens up new business opportunities because, well, Linux doesn't yet have all the software Windows has. It's time to be a little bit patriotic, people!
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
I have been called stupid by people with less agile minds previously, so I have learned to take it as a compliment.
The open source itself is a lock in since you rely on some developer in some part of the world that you never see. If that person decides to change the license you have nothing to do about it.
If the project is of any global importance, it will be forked (just look at xfree86, oops, x.org). If it is only of importance to your company, you can fork the bugger y
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
For those in task-oriented positions that have a high number of users, having an X terminal of some sort attached to centralized computer/application servers makes much more sense though.
The beauty of the standard desktop PC or Mac is that it is simple enough to use yet powerful enough to do all sorts of unplanned tasks.
"Right Tool for the Job."
The problem with both Microsoft and Linux is they seem to want to domin
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
Re:They're going open-source for the wrong reasons (Score:2)
In fact, that's exactly why a lot of companies are still using Windows 98. It works, and the cost of switching just isn't worth it.
However, as security issues add up and we decide we want new features, we're soon going to have the choice between Longhorn and Linux. I'm betting a lot of people, when forced to upgrade, will consider Linux.
Ironically, OSS could greatly assist libertarianis (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft made $521M in sales from the US Army a procurement cycle ago. Imagine if by switching to Linux for most of that, the US Army could cut down the market by $450M. If the government's contract values go down significantly because of Linux then the major companies will have less interest in selling to the government.
In the long run this will reduce the reasons for why we are taxed so heavily by our Congressional overlords who at present cannot account already for approximately at least 1/22 ($100B) of the federal budget. To put that in perspective, that is approximately 1/80 of the wealth generated by Americans that is wasted by government bureacracy. That is not even counting the waste at the state level and the good old boy/girl networks commonly known as your average municipal "public service."
"old Europe" (Score:4, Interesting)
I suspect that a great many European Slashdot readers are happy about the French plan not only because it could be a victory for Open Source, but also because it sends the message that America and American companies have come to expect blind acquiescence from the rest of the world.
Action, meet Reaction.
Protectionism/Nationalism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyone else see a pattern? Perhaps it's not open-source ideals that's driving this move, but good old-fashioned protectionism, at least in part.
What will French geeks be like I wonder? (Score:5, Funny)
Qu'est-que c'est 'command line'?
Apres moi, le r00t!
Je pense, donc je hax0r.
Bonjour, mademoiselle. Parlez-vous php?
Le b0x. Les b0xen?
BSOD? MERDE!
Uh oh, I sense a black hole forming. (Score:2)
This is gonna be like a platoon of Imperial Stormtroopers going up against a squad of Starfleet Red-shirted ensigns.
Re:Uh oh, I sense a black hole forming. (Score:2)
They're ALL dead, Jim!
Whats the trend? (Score:2, Interesting)
SUSE -Germany
Mandarke -France
RedHat -USA
Are we going to have classification of countries by operating systems that they use majorly????
Save a Franc or two? (Score:3, Funny)
Fun: Microsoft software running under Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft would be in a position where it could compete for the position of supplying office software, but only if it ported their office software to the Open Source platform.
I wonder what they would do.
It would fun just to watch what they do in that predicament.
Not the first ones-- definitely not the biggest... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's also a political statement (Score:3, Insightful)
We've worked hard at making ourselves abhorrent to the rest of the world the last four years, so efforts like these get a boost from political ill will. The fact they're getting a more stable and secure OS platform with a lower overall TCO is merely a bonus. I don't think the political climate alone would justify the transition costs, but that coupled with MSFT's own corporate malfeasance is enough to get them over the hump.
I could be wrong but I'm guessing there's more than technical considerations playing into this.
And after hearing this news (Score:4, Funny)
Re:France Would Save More Costs (Score:5, Informative)
You roll out the old "big government" argument without considering the fact that France is not going the way of the Soviet Union, but is in fact a very healthy economy.
John.
Europe vs. America (Score:4, Interesting)
The growing split between the U.S. and Europe has been much in the news, mostly on foreign policy. But less well understood is the gap in economic growth and standards of living. Now comes a European report that puts the American advantage in surprisingly stark relief.
The study, "The EU vs. USA," was done by a pair of economists -- Fredrik Bergstrom and Robert Gidehag -- for the Swedish think tank Timbro. It found that if Europe were part of the U.S., only tiny Luxembourg could rival the richest of the 50 American states in gross domestic product per capita. Most European countries would rank below the U.S. average, as the nearby chart shows.
The authors admit that man doesn't live by GDP alone, and that this measure misses output in the "black" economy, which is significant in Europe's high-tax states. GDP also overlooks "the value of leisure or a good environment" or the way prosperity is spread across a society.
[Germany and Arkansas]
But a rising tide still lifts all boats, and U.S. GDP per capita was a whopping 32% higher than the EU average in 2000, and the gap hasn't closed since. It is so wide that if the U.S. economy had frozen in place at 2000 levels while Europe grew, the Continent would still require years to catch up. Ireland, which has lower tax burdens and fewer regulations than the rest of the EU, would be the first but only by 2005. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, and Britain would get there by 2010. But Germany and Spain would need until 2015, while Italy, Sweden and Portugal would have to wait until 2022.
Higher GDP per capita allows the average American to spend about $9,700 more on consumption every year than the average European. So Yanks have by far more cars, TVs, computers and other modern goods. "Most Americans have a standard of living which the majority of Europeans will never come anywhere near," the Swedish study says.
But what about equality? Well, the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line has dropped to 12% from 22% since 1959. In 1999, 25% of American households were considered "low income," meaning they had an annual income of less than $25,000. If Sweden -- the very model of a modern welfare state -- were judged by the same standard, about 40% of its households would be considered low income.
In other words poverty is relative, and in the U.S. a large 45.9% of the "poor" own their homes, 72.8% have a car and almost 77% have air conditioning, which remains a luxury in most of Western Europe. The average living space for poor American households is 1,200 square feet. In Europe, the average space for all households, not just the poor, is 1,000 square feet.
So what is Europe's problem? "The expansion of the public sector into overripe welfare states in large parts of Europe is and remains the best guess as to why our continent cannot measure up to our neighbor in the west," the authors write. In 1999, average EU tax revenues were more than 40% of GDP, and in some countries above 50%, compared with less than 30% for most of the U.S.
We don't report this with any nationalist glee. The world needs a prosperous, growing Europe, and its relative economic decline is one reason for growing EU-American tension. A poorer Europe lacks the wealth to invest in defense, a fact that in turn affects the willingness of Europeans to join America in confronting global security threats. But at least all of this is a warning to U.S. politicians who want this country to go down the same welfare-state road to decline.
Re:France Would Save More Costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:France Would Save More Costs (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, under Bush the surplus under Clinton has turned into a deficit that increases with 4.2 % of GDP [usatoday.com] a year. Much of this deficit [brillig.com] is caused by tax cuts for the rich [cbpp.org], and the deficit is basically a tax increase for everyone (through weaker dollar, higher inflation, cuts in government programs, etc etc) which of course hits the poor and the middle classes hardest.
Re:France Would Save More Costs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm not surprised by this. (Score:2, Informative)
Food for thought
Re:I'm not surprised by this. (Score:2, Funny)
> helped you win your revolutionary war against the
> british? Without who's help you would have never
> won?
Yes, I agree 100%.
If the French wouldn't have helped you, you certainely would still be speaking english at this time !
Fortunately, they came to help you.
Re:I'm not surprised by this. (Score:2)
This is a fundamental tenet of the economical theory of mercantilism. First you colonize and pop
Re:I'm not surprised by this. (Score:4, Funny)
> the center of the world's culture
Well, by listening to your president talking, I'm pretty confident that the USA are not either.
Re:This is stupid.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Heh (Score:2, Insightful)