Posted on 02/06/2002 2:49:10 PM PST by Justa
Microsoft Corp. is striking back at a growing movement seeking to switch computers in the Bundestag, Germany's lower house of Parliament, over to the open-source Linux operating system.
Kurt Sibold, chairman of the board of the software giant's German subsidiary Microsoft GmbH, accused the initiators of a pro-Linux petition of smearing the reputation of his company.
"What you are achieving by supporting this campaign is public discrimination, accusing our products and services of being undemocratic and an obstacle to democracy," he wrote in an open letter to signatories of the online petition, known as www.bundestux.de.
The petition campaign was launched last week with 12 initial signatories, among them several members of parliament and open-source fans, including commercial Linux distributor Red Hat Inc.'s Managing Director for Central and Eastern Europe, Dieter Hoffmann. Within two days, more than 11,000 other supporters added their names, according to a statement from the petition committee.
The petition asks the Bundestag to take a stand against "monopoly positions," pointing out that Microsoft's operating system, Web browser, and e-mail programs hold a market share of over 90 percent in Germany. It also appeals to government bodies to implement open-source software for "democratic" reasons.
"The democratic component is not simply in the increased security and flexibility of the software, but is more the expression of a broad democratic understanding that encompasses economic and technological developments. Based on these considerations it is plainly the duty of a democratic state to choose free software," the document reads in part.
That was too much for Sibold, who wrote, "But what does a decision for or against an operating system have to do with 'democratic rules of the game'? Open source software is ... not per se a guarantee for free-market competition, just as a decision to use my company's products is not at present, nor was it in the past, an 'undemocratic' decision."
A parliamentary committee is due to decide by the end of this month whether to renew Microsoft licenses for the Bundestag's some 5,000 PCs, or to switch to Linux.
Rick Perera is a correspondent for the IDG News Service.
-Justa (MCP Windows 2000).
I wish MS no ill, but it would be in the best interest of business and competition in general, if Linux caught on and became the de facto standard Network OS.
Of course MS could simply offer Torvalds a gazillion bucks to sell out and turn Linux over to them. It sounds farfetched but it's happened before (e.g. MS' attempt to acquire Intuit in the wake of MS Money's failure to gain much market share vs. Quicken).
If Linux can't handle the growing pains there's always the spectre of the OS 'forking' which everyone agrees would be bad for the platform. I'll stick with whatever Mandrake offers for a while yet. It has a great development and support team. Imo the most robust contender of the platform.
N.b. this does not disqualify Microsoft outright - they do give some people access to some source code - but it does put a pretty heavy burden on Microsoft to show there are no surveillance back doors in their products.
That's how the GPL works to keep software free, as opposed to the BSD or MIT licenses.
There's one thing stopping them from doing this: a non-compete agreement with the Santa Cruz Operation that they signed when they sold Xenix to SCO. As far as I know, this non-compete agreement is still in effect.
Yes, that's right. Microsoft used to sell a unix version. Could we come full circle?
its not his to "sell". the GPL makes sure of that. once GPL, always GPL.
The biggest flaw with closed source is that malicious kernal-level instruction sets can be put together by unscrupulous developers and can be used to compromise every machine running the OS. And then only the Microsoft programmers who know the source code can debug it. All of the MS-based virus scanners, firewalls etc. only protect the OS's shell operations. In some cases they can neither detect nor block kernal level scripts. This was, and is the problem with Code Red. It has at least 3 NT4 payloads, two of which remain unaddressed by Microsoft.
Code Red has several sets of NT4 kernal-level instructions as well as the 2000/NT5 IIS exploit. Unfortunately, because both OSs are closed-source not only are the instructions very difficult to detect but they are in fact the property of Microsoft. Even if one is able to detect the exploits they still need permission from MS for blocking or eliminating them. This is what Symmantic went thru last spring after they identified the NT4/NT5 virtual root trojan of Code Red. They had to wait six weeks for approval from MS before they could release the fix since it addressed kernal-level operations.
With Open Source programs like Linux when a virus or exploit is discovered word of it spreads very quickly and a fix is usually available online in days -if not hours. This is because kernal-level operations are not closed like MS's but are open for administrators to see. No one can poke around in the Linux kernal without the whole world seeing what they're doing. Since Linux is Open Source it cannot hide it's flaws -or vulnerabilities. The critical ones are usually addressed immediately, particularly if they have to do with the kernal or OS security. With MS, you're dependent upon a handful of programmers in Redmond, WA to 1) admit there's a problem, 2) decide whether or not it warrants Microsoft's "support" and then 3) get around to fixing it along with all the other stuff they're tasked with doing.
"Open source allows for observing, monitoring and modifying kernal(sic)-level instructions, the 'guts' of the OS. This is control, and control=security."
I submit that your premise is flawed. Being open-source exposes the software to exploits every bit as much as closed-source does…it’s just a matter of being approached differently by the cracker. If Linux had the market share that MS has, it would probably be exploited almost, if not just, as much.
And given how many different versions of Linux there will eventually be, the ‘support/response’ speed is going to go way down…unless, of course, your company spends the 80k a year for an in house programmer.
Not that I’m a fan of MS. They piss me off on a daily basis. It's just that I'm so tired of the “Everything’s butterflies and ice cream in the Linux world” zealotry. Every OS flawed to the degree that it is functional.
It cracks me up that FReepers are smart enough to understand that communism has it’s good and bad sides but is mostly deplorable up until you start talking about communist software…at which point the blinders come on and Linux is The Second Coming.
That's just stupid. There's nothing "communist" about Linux, and I think you know that.
Maybe it's more socialist. No...that still involves government...the correct word escapes me.
Ah...'Collectivist'.
What's after collectivist OS's? Word processors? Database designs? Games?
When, in this software utopia of Open Source Land, do programmers stop being able to make a legitimate living?
I’m pretty happy with Linux because it’s good and very good for specific purposes. What worries me is when employers start thinking that ALL software should be free “Because Linux is” and programmers become the computer industry’s burger-flippers.
We’re seeing this type of attitude cropping up with the Tech Visas right now. It’s only going to spread.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.