“The Russian Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications has announced a plan to replace proprietary software with open source and locally produced software.”
See Russia to replace proprietary software with open source
Better late than never… In 2010, Putin ordered Russia to convert to FLOSS by 2015. It took them until now just to figure out how to do that:

  • Prefer locally generated software,
  • Choose GNU/Linux and FLOSS as the platform, and
  • Collaborate with other countries, particularly BRICS, to create specific applications.

Amen. I may not like a lot of what Putin has done, but this is the right way for all governments to do IT. It frees them from monopoly. It saves them a ton of money. It unleashes the talent of the world outside the monopolists. Governments tend to be the largest organizations in many countries. That size empowers them to be the engine of software development in the world of FLOSS. Instead of exporting $billions annually to M$ and “partners”, they can pay their own people to adapt FLOSS and */Linux and contribute to FLOSS generally. Many large businesses do this. Why not governments? Also, it’s their job to protect their economies from criminal monopolies like M$’s.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Demonopolization

  1. oiaohm says:

    ssorbom as I said Russian being Russians their first Dos clone was barely usable as well. So they are likely to give something like Reactos a try no matter how long the odds are.

  2. ssorbom says:

    Regardless of how compatable they are API-wise, from a practical standpoint Reactos is barely usable for much of anything. I don’t see what the Russian government gains from going its own way here.
    The last time I used it, the filemanager locked up the entire OS when recursing through a particularly deep directory structure. Another time, I got a BSOD from installing the latest firefox. Don’t get me wrong, what they have managed so far is a marvel from an engineering standpoint, I just wouldn’t trust it with anything serious (yet).
    Mr. Pogson,
    You should spin up a VM and try it someday, it is an interesting project if you don’t mind working with alpha software.

  3. oiaohm says:

    kurkosdr not knowing history. When Russia had the cold war they made their own version of Dos. It was not 100 percent compatible with MS Dos but was enough for their needs.

    So partial-compatibility is acceptable by Russian standards. Supporting Reactos is Russians being Russians.

    Power of a government comes into play here. Russian government can put that Reactos compatibility is required to win government contracts.

    –Windows-compatible Linux distribution ReactOS–
    Not this line does not say what you said at all kurkosdr. Reactos is a pure NT kernel design. Reactos is not a Linux Distribution because it does not contain a Linux kernel.

    –You are either compatible (what AMD is to x86) or you are partially-compatible (Wine to win32). Can’t they get that simple distinction?–

    Reactos is like AMD is to X86 at different stages of history. AMD has not always been perfectly x86 compatible. Yes applications had to be coded particularly to work with AMD instead of generic x86 at times.

    Wine to Win32 does not apply to Reactos.

    Really Adrian Offerman goofed badly and you are too low in the knowledge department to know it kurkosdr.

  4. kurkosdr says:

    and the Windows-compatible Linux distribution ReactOS have

    Lololol, someone has been suckered into believing ReactOS is a drop-in replacement of Windows.

    I hate it when FOSS project claim we are “something-compatible” but they actually mean partial-compatibility.

    You are either compatible (what AMD is to x86) or you are partially-compatible (Wine to win32). Can’t they get that simple distinction?

Leave a Reply