Posted on 09/13/2003 7:32:43 PM PDT by chilepepper
Governments like open-source software, but Microsoft does not
IN MAY, the city of Munich decided to oust Microsoft Windows from the 14,000 computers used by local-government employees in favour of Linux, an open-source operating system. Although the contract was worth a modest $35m, Microsoft's chief executive, Steve Ballmer, interrupted his holiday in Switzerland to visit Munich and lobby the mayor. Microsoft even dropped its prices to match Linux—a remarkable feat since Linux is essentially free and users merely purchase support services alongside it. But the software giant still lost. City officials said the decision was a matter of principle: the municipality wanted to control its technological destiny. It did not wish to place the functioning of government in the hands of a commercial vendor with proprietary standards which is accountable to shareholders rather than to citizens.
Worryingly for Microsoft, Munich is not alone in holding that view. Across the globe, governments are turning to open-source software which, unlike proprietary software, allows users to inspect, modify and freely redistribute its underlying programming instructions. Scores of national and state governments have drafted legislation calling for open-source software to be given preferential treatment in procurement. Brazil, for instance, is preparing to recommend that all its government agencies and state enterprises buy open source.
Other countries are funding open-source software initiatives outright. China has been working on a local version of Linux for years, on the grounds of national self-sufficiency, security and to avoid being too dependent on a single foreign supplier. Politicians in India have called on its vast army of programmers to develop open-source products for the same reasons. This month, Japan said it would collaborate with China and South Korea to develop open-source alternatives to Microsoft's software. Japan has already allocated ¥1 billion ($9m) to the project.
Why all the fuss? Modern governments generate a vast number of digital files. From birth certificates and tax returns to criminal DNA records, the documents must be retrievable in perpetuity. So governments are reluctant to store official records in the proprietary formats of commercial-software vendors. This concern will only increase as e-government services, such as filing a tax return or applying for a driving licence online, gain momentum. In Microsoft's case, security flaws in its software, such as those exploited by the recent Blaster and SoBig viruses, are also a cause of increasing concern.
Government purchases of software totalled almost $17 billion globally in 2002, and the figure is expected to grow by about 9% a year for the next five years, according to IDC, a market-research firm (see chart). Microsoft controls a relatively small part of this market, with sales to governments estimated at around $2.8 billion. But it is a crucial market, because when a government opts for a particular technology, the citizens and businesses that deal with it often have to fall into line. (In one notable example, America's defence department adopted the internet protocol as its networking standard, forcing contractors to use it, which in turn created a large market for internet-compliant products.) No wonder Microsoft feels threatened—the marriage of open-source software and government could be its Achilles heel.
Policymakers like open source for many reasons. In theory, the software's transparency increases security because “backdoors” used by hackers can be exposed and programmers can root out bugs from the code. The software can also be tailored to the user's specific needs, and upgrades happen at a pace chosen by the user, not the vendor. The open-source model of openness and collaboration has produced some excellent software that is every bit the equal of commercial, closed-source products. And, of course, there is no risk of being locked in to a single vendor.
That said, open-source is no panacea, and there are many areas where proprietary products are still far superior. Oracle, the world's second-largest software company, need not worry (yet) about governments switching to open-source alternatives to its database software. But Microsoft is vulnerable, because an open-source rival to its Windows operating system exists already, in the form of Linux.
If Microsoft is indeed squeezed out of the government sector by open-source software, three groups stand to benefit: large consultancy firms and systems integrators, such as IBM, which will be called in to devise and install alternative products; firms such as Red Hat or SuSE, which sell Linux-based products and services; and numerous small, local technology firms that can tailor open-source products for governmental users.
As a result, the company has been fighting back. Microsoft and its allies have sought to discredit open-source software, likening its challenge of proprietary ownership to communism and suggesting that its openness makes it insecure and therefore vulnerable to terrorism. The firm also created a controversial slush fund to allow it to offer deep discounts to ensure that it did not lose government sales to Linux on the basis of price. And Microsoft has paid for a series of studies, the latest of which appeared this week, which invariably find that, in specific applications, Windows costs less than Linux.
More strikingly, Microsoft has been imitating the ways of the open-source “community”. Last year, the firm launched a “shared source” initiative that allows certain approved governments and large corporate clients to gain access to most of the Windows software code, though not to modify it. This is intended, in part, to assuage the fears of foreign governments that Windows might contain secret security backdoors. Microsoft has also made available some portions of the source code of Windows CE, which runs on handheld PCs and mobile phones, to enable programmers to tinker with the code. Tellingly, this is a market where the company is a straggler rather than a leader.
Jason Matusow, Microsoft's shared-source manager, says that developing software requires leadership and an understanding of customer needs—both areas where proprietary-software companies excel. As for proposed legislation that would stipulate one type of software over another, it is anti-competitive and could leave users hamstrung with products that are not the best for their specific needs, says Robert Kramer, executive director of the Initiative for Software Choice, a Microsoft-supported lobby group. Microsoft will advance these views next week in Rome, where it is hosting the latest in a series of conferences for government leaders. But the signs are that many of them have already made up their minds.
If Microsoft had a truly superior product I think Linux wouldn't stand a chance. The problem is that Microsoft has operated too long from the inovation of lawyers and MBAs... new "features" in Microsoft tend to be either somewhat coontrived as opposed to market driven, else are blatantly aimed at tightening down on the user license, or trying to make MS files and programs harder to reverse engineer so as to force users to stay with MS -- which is after all Microsoft's right, just as it is the markets right to reject this move, which is what we are seeing.
IBM tried this sort of thing once with the famous PS2 which used proprietary, closed, hardware -- the market did not follow IBM on this and Compaq left the IBM PC in the dust.
That's what I said.
I understand. The Japanese and German cars didn't really get a hold in US markets until Ford and GM began producing either comparable junk, as they did in the '70's or misjudged buyer demands, as in they did '80's. Microsoft seems to be behaving as did General Motors for the last 30 years. GM and FoMoCo were just as capable of producing a Honda Accord or Toyota Celica, but they didn't. Trucks were more profitable.
I can't say with certainty that Linux will beat Windows in the immediate future. But long term, the majority of the worlds computers will be on an open system. The best open system will (should) win. I hope it's from America.
Because we are an open society, with the right to own private property.
You're confused. It sounds like you've bought the weird MS propaganda that Open Source is some kind of Communist thing.
Linux is software, written by people who want to write it. Pay attention to that. They choose to make something, usually because they want to use the finished product, but lack the skill, the time or the money to do it all themselves.
That constitutes pursuing their own self-interest, which happens to dovetail with other peoples' self-interest. Cooperation is not inherently Communistic when put that way, is it?
It seems to work. At least, the Linux machine I am typing this message from has never let me down.
But it's okay if you think it's not "new" or "innovative" enough or if you just plain want nothing to do with it. That's freedom, too.
I prefer Opera to the MS brouser, do not use any MS E mail software, and I like SUSI and Red Hat Linux a great deal.
I do not trust Bill Gates and company, and hope more governments and businesses vote against MS with their feet.
Open source is the way of the future, MS is whalebone corset and buggywhip material that has no real future unles they change some fundimentalsabout how they operate and even view software.
I agree. My experience is from a sort of "parallel universe", GP and Indy auto racing. The engines that were being made just to win one race for the glory (and bucks), are now available at you local GM or FoMoCo dealer. Some of the technology was forced by fuel requirements and environment, but never-the-less, I wish I had a time machine to transport some 2003 showroom engines back in time 25 years.
This is exactly the sort of thing that I've been talking about... I have nothing against MS personally, but trying to get MS products to work can be such a headache. I don't claim to be a MS expert (but I work with a number of them), and we're all baffled by a system that I use at work... It's a Win2K Professional system, fully patched with the latest drivers... And it locks up for no apparant reason. It only locks up with Win2K... I had to run extensive diagnostics for 5 days, and it never locked up. Now, it locks up at least 4 times a day. the only software that's loaded on the system is MS software... Office 2000 (SR1). And when I try to update that, I get an error... No explanation, just an error. This is the third time I've loaded this system from scratch, going so far as to use different installation media. It's NOT the hardware. As I said, the hardware passed the diags, and more importantly, I've run both Linux and NetWare on the system with no problems. I work for a MCSP, and we can't get any help from Microsoft... They insist that it's a hardware problem. Funny, I work for a company that's a $700 million dollar a year VAR, and MS doesn't feel that it's important.
Mark
Research on "cathode rays" was carried on in Britain, France and Germany. J. J. Thompson is credited with discovering the electron around 1897, and John A Fleming invented the diode vacuum tube. They were both Brits.
Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler, Germans, are usually credited with inventing the automobile in 1884.
The Wright brothers did invent the airplane in the United States in 1903, but its development languished here. By the beginning of World War I, the British, French and Germans were far ahead. IIRC, the US Army Air Corp bought French (gasp!) planes when we entered the war.
(And, I use Winblows).
there is a tool for every job
Their current shoddy security practices I fear will prove their undoing.
Is the problem with MS Operating Systems a Microsoft one or an end user one? I've used MS OSes since 1993 and have never had one compromised, nor have I been subjected to a virus or worm. Why? I know how to use the tool.
Simply blaming the vendor for ALL of the problems makes about as much sense as blaming gun manufacturers for gun violence.
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.