Decades after the concept, governments still treat openness with suspicion. What’s with that? We replaced tyrants with democratic governments. Didn’t we?
“Although there is a lack of quantitative evidence on expected cost savings from adopting open standards, abundant examples exist where an open standards policy has been adopted with various consequent benefits, and the literature identifies few downside risks. The challenges appear to lie in the manner of implementation so that potential pitfalls, such as adopting the wrong standard, are avoided while potential gains from increased interoperability, including more competitive procurement and benefits to SMEs and citizens are maximised.”
see Open Standards in
Government IT: A Review of the Evidence.
I don’t know how much evidence they need:
- the obviously lower licensing costs of FLOSS
- published accounts of huge savings in operating costs
- escape from lock-in
- hiring locally
- sharing the cost of software development along with thousands of organizations instead of paying a multiple of that
- saving licensing and migration costs at every update of software, forever
It seems the non-FREE software model is dying albeit slowly:
- governments are actually aware of the benefits of FLOSS (ending denial)
- governments now see the FUD about FLOSS costing more as hollow
- governments are beginning to prefer FLOSS by banning trademarks from purchasing requests
- governments are sharing more data and more knowledge about FLOSS with citizens and students
- a few governments are even moving to GNU/Linux on clients and servers
17465
12771
206
3
2
23911 
11861 
11713 
4640 
4261 
1642 
198 
14 
2 
0 
0 
0 
We replaced tyrants with democratic governments. Didn’t we?
A worth-while proposition in Canada in 1837, I believe. But 1837 is a long, long time ago.
I don’t know when you first had access to a computer of any description, but let’s, for the sake of argument, call it 1970.
No freedom then. In fact, it was the same thin-client/server model that you are so enthusiastic about. Which is a nitwit proposition, forty years on.
Tyranny?
You can purchase the Microsoft OS, the Microsoft Office Suite, and any number of proprietary stuff like Intuit if you want.
Or not. Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
Not exactly “tyranny,” is it? Unless you consider $29 a head as “tyranny.”
Dr Loser wrote, “Not exactly “tyranny,” is it? Unless you consider $29 a head as “tyranny.””
I owe no one $29 a head for non-FREE software. However, if I go to most Big Box stores in Winnipeg, I will be forced to pay ~$100 just to buy any x86 PC. That’s tyranny and it insinuates itself into the cost-structure of all IT globally. That’s real tyranny.
That’s not tyranny. It’s the market giving you a hint.
You claim that Linux on the desktop is not happening because it’s not happening in retail. But a choice is a choice. People can buy a Windows 8 PC. Or they can search for a store where they can buy a PC without Windows.
What do you want to do? Make the state order Microsoft to give money to the Linux Foundation, so they can advertise Linux?
Really, why don’t you relax? According to your God-given prophecies Microsoft will be dead and gone soon. Then everything will be fine.
Chuckle.
Der Balrog wrote, “they can search for a store where they can buy a PC without Windows.”
That’s fruitless as far as I know. There are no such stores. That’s what monopoly does.
There is a small outfit 125 miles west of Winnipeg selling PCs with and without GNU/Linux.
You pay Microsoft for the “privilege” of letting them tell you what can and cannot do with your hardware. So it goes beyond what you pay Microsoft. That’s tyranny.
I owe no one $29 a head for non-FREE software.
Thank you for reinforcing my point, Robert. No, you don’t owe anybody $29. (Although, if you did, it would hardly be the end of the world.)
And yes, it is non-FREE. I believe that obvious fact is encoded in the rubric. Not only is it non-FREE, but it has a specific price: in this case, $29.
$29 is a whole lot of money, and you can do far more useful things with it than to buy an operating system. You can solve the civil war in Syria. You can buy several cans of spray paint and daub the walls of downtown Manitoba with a mural along the lines of “Jean Charest is a gun-hating froggie loony, and besides which, I don’t believe he has ever read the second book of ‘A la recherche du temps perdu.” You can even take the little woman out for a good nosh — I recommend that.
You can do all these things, and all of them are useful. (Probably the nosh thing is the most useful.) $29 is a negotiable instrument, when it comes down to it. But cans of spray paint are not free, and classic novels are not free, and even a meal bought to show your beloved that she is the apple of your eye is not free.
Not only are these things not free; they are worth paying for. The notional cost is $29 in each case. And the notional cost of a commercial operating system is also $29. It may or may not be worth it.
This is how we do things in the Free World, Robert. We makes our choices and we pays our $29 for those choices. It is not tyranny, no matter how hard you try to depict it as such. (Another can of spray paint required, I think.)
By the way, it’s “Within a Budding Grove.” I had to look it up.
You’re welcome.
You pay Microsoft for the “privilege” of letting them tell you what can and cannot do with your hardware. So it goes beyond what you pay Microsoft. That’s tyranny.
You’re insane.
Downtown Winnipeg, sigh.
Sorry ’bout that.
DRBoring So the woman who cries rape because she won’t submit to the whims of some man is insane?
I’m trying to think like a loon right now. But I can’t really find any angle from which this statement would make sense in this context. Let’s try the time-tested substitution method:
Perhaps we have to turn to the definition of the word “tyranny” to clear things up.
Does Microsoft do this? No. Because they don’t have the power. Users have a choice, businesses have a choice, OEMs have a choice. Everybody has a choice. There’s also no state forcing its citizens to use a specific OS.
Well, Microsoft doesn’t rule anything (like Doctor Doom ruling Latveria).
I’m quite sure Microsoft is in no way a state.
Again, Microsoft is not a ruler.
Pogson would claim that this is the case, as the definition is generic enough. Those Windows XP computers he had to administrate but did not know how — that was probably “undue severity or harshness” to him.
Again, generic enough to be “true”. Most children at any given time will likely complain about their parents being tyrants because they’re not allowed to go to a sleepover or use their smartphones so much etc.
What has rape to do with this again?
It’s also funny coming from Adam King. The church is a shining example when it comes to rape and its consequences. Just remember that not long ago in Germany two Catholic hospitals refused to treat a rape victim and prescribe emergency contraception on the grounds of Catholicism. Yes, when you’ve been raped God doesn’t love you anymore. Apparently the same is true when you use Windows. Only a loon like Adam King could come up with such an analogy.
Der Balrog let do something simple. Have Windows group policy place an icon on the users desktop. Only want it on a particular set of users. Simple right.
Not so. If that software happens to be on a network share and not installed locally. Along comes Windows Anti-malware at random times and deletes what the administrator did. This happens in Windows 7 and 8 in different ways. It does not happen with XP or 2000 or before.
To administrator Windows equals knowing a huge stack of Conner cases.
–Those Windows XP computers he had to administrate but did not know how — that was probably “undue severity or harshness” to him.–
Even in XP knowing how does not mean its pleasant all the time. Education software is the worst evil for not following the rules. Like shoving random libaries into c:\windows\system and just happen to use duplicate names. Or having intrusive copyright protection systems that don’t get a long.
I can see a person swapping to Linux and getting away from people asking for and install crap software as advantage.
“undue severity or harshness” of Windows to system admins comes from two fronts. 1 the eco system of software around Windows is crap in a lot of ways.
2 Microsoft
2.1 lack of providing something like chroot equal in Windows to throw a pain in ass application so it cannot mess up anything else.
Please don’t say virtual machines is MS chroot. Virtual machines are very ram hungry.
2.2 some software from Microsoft not doing as advertised. Malware cleaning where does this say delete my desktop icons just because they point to a exe on network share. There is no off switch either other than don’t accept updates.
2.3 Another issue. Malware cleaning package contains libaries later updates depend on same with Internet explorer updates. Its very hard to refuse an update using wsus without having a explosion down the road. There is no clean dependency graphic. Yes Linux has dependency hell but you don’t have opps my system crashes because you installed an update that depends on another update you choose not to install.
Those 3 are just a tip of a very big iceberg of Window issues.
Der Balrog yes there is administrator abuse from Windows. Saying its the administrator lacking skill is one thing.
Get this thing in your head every time a computer stop who do the users yell at.
Yes Linux dependancy hell blocking you from installing application you want is annoying. But its better than 20+ people screaming at you because there computer crashed due to not having dependency hell. Linux dependency hell you can solve in private.
Yes its a funny one dependancy hell is prick for home user but for business admin its a god send.
“It’s also funny coming from Adam King. The church is a shining example when it comes to rape and its consequences. Just remember that not long ago in Germany two Catholic hospitals refused to treat a rape victim and prescribe emergency contraception on the grounds of Catholicism. Yes, when you’ve been raped God doesn’t love you anymore. Apparently the same is true when you use Windows. Only a loon like Adam King could come up with such an analogy.”
What does this have to do with the church of GNU/Linux?
What has rape to do with Microsoft, Adam? You’re belittling rape victims for the sake of your deluded anti-Microsoft propaganda.
But sexists in FLOSS are pretty much the norm. So you’re no exception.
@DRBoring’s obvious sockpuppet
“What has rape to do with Microsoft, Adam? You’re belittling rape victims for the sake of your deluded anti-Microsoft propaganda.”
Both rapests and M$ seek to deprive us of choice which is illegal.