Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Spanish Province Dist-Upgrades 254

Posted by michael from the choice-of-a-gnu-generation dept.
Johnny Mnemonic writes "The Spanish province of Extremadura has adopted Linux for the official OS of schools and offices, largely because of price. Simply, they don't have enough money for other OSes, and they promise to handle the rollout more gracefully than a similar Linux initiative in Mexico. According to Wired, this is the first time a European school system has switched to Linux."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spanish Province Dist-Upgrades More

Spanish Province Dist-Upgrades

Comments Filter:
  • More power to them!

    (I don't know Spanish, but Babelfish is my friend and really....more power to them)

  • Just a minor correction... (Score:5, Informative)

    by mfarah ( 231411 ) <miguel&farah,cl> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @08:59PM (#3384981) Homepage
    The Spanish province of Extremadura has[...]

    Actually, Extremadura is an autonomous community (formerly a region under the older division of the country). It's composed of TWO provinces: Cáceres and Badajoz.

    There. Mod me down as redundant if you will.
    • Extremadura is an autonomous community

      WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
      DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship: a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
      WOMAN: Oh, there you go bringing class into it again.

  • The desktop-revolution begins (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rseuhs ( 322520 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @08:59PM (#3384982)
    Even the most die-hard Microsoft supporters will admit that Linux is viable on the desktop right now.

    Microsoft supporters usually cite "migration costs" or "training costs", or other shortsighted reasons why people should not switch to Linux.

    This is shortsighted because corporations and organisations come and go -> If switching costs is the only thing in favor of Windows, then it will lose slowly, but steadily.

    Of course, the massive Windows-exodus will not start before CodeWeavers and Transgaming make Linux "Windows compatible", but I see them doing exactly this in the next 2 years.

    Then computer-makers will start putting Windows-compatible-but-cheaper-than-Windows Linux on their boxes.

    • If you notice which companies grow the most - it's the small ones. They're flexible enough to change their working practices unlike the big behemoths where they're virtually set in stone!
    • Linux is not viable on the desktop yet. It's all about the apps, not the OS.

      Until Star Office or Open Office can match up with MS Office, Linux on the desktop is only viable for geeks. (I also like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Cakewalk Pro, but don't see them being ported any time soon. GIMP ain't in the Photoshop caliber league inspite of what some people may think.)

      Hardware compatibility is another problem. With all the winmodems and NICs out there that don't work with Linux how can you expect to get people to use it if you can't network? Replacing the NICs and winmodems isn't always the answer if you've got a cash strapped school.

      If it takes an extra 3 or 4 hours plus the cost of extra parts to get a machine compatible with Linux, and you guestimate labor at $50/hour, suddenly buying an M$ license doesn't look so terrible.

      I still like Linux on the servers, but on the desktop, it's got a long way to go.

      • As far as i'm concerned, OO matches MS office. it's not _exactly_ the same thing but it does what an office app should do, and it's very close to being able to open up MS docs well. It can do what an office system should do, and it does it well. Once an office application is available, adoption will follow. Applications follow a market - and if linux doesn't get XYZ applications in ABC time that doesn't mean it isn't "viable", it just means it isn't the right thing for you at that time.

        Gimp is cool, there are a million cool things about linux. And yes you can use it successfully as a desktop OS - I do.

        Getting a machine "linux compatible" is much easier in my experience than getting a machine windows 2K compatible, by far - and XP has some pretty high standards too. I've never had problem with NICs, and my bet is that winmodem support will come, and in some areas is coming. As much as they suck, i wouldn't mind the extra for a REAL MODEM, thank you.

      • Re:The desktop-revolution begins (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Until Star Office or Open Office can match up with MS Office, Linux on the desktop is only viable for geeks.

        Star/Open Office don't have to be better than MS Office, they only have to be good enough, which they are. The most critical thing that's lacking is file format compatibility. But when that isn't an issue (such as in this case), Star/Open Office is good enough.

        Hardware compatibility is another problem. With all the winmodems and NICs out there that don't work with Linux how can you expect to get people to use it if you can't network? Replacing the NICs and winmodems isn't always the answer if you've got a cash strapped school.

        Aside from the fact that Linux NIC compatibility is very good, a cheap NE2000 card is still a good ways cheaper than an XP license.

        ...and you guestimate labor at $50/hour

        You really think that admins in Spain make $50/hour? Bwahahahahahahahaha!

      • Until Star Office or Open Office can match up with MS Office, Linux on the desktop is only viable for geeks.

        between openoffice, koffice, and gnome office (abiword, gnumeric, gnucash, etc) the free office suites handle almost every function that a home user will ever really use. also, features are constantly getting added to accomidate niche users that currently couldn't use one of the free office suites.

        Hardware compatibility is another problem. With all the winmodems and NICs out there that don't work with Linux how can you expect to get people to use it if you can't network?

        eh.. winmodems are one thing, but i have yet to find a nic that didn't work 100% with linux. how many schools/offices are there that have individual desktop machines dialing into anything on their own? there's almost always a local network and _maybe_ a server that dials up on network activity.

        I still like Linux on the servers, but on the desktop, it's got a long way to go.

        it's closer than you think. if you haven't looked at kde or gnome lately, look again.

      • Until Star Office or Open Office can match up with MS Office, Linux on the desktop is only viable for geeks. (I also like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Cakewalk Pro, but don't see them being ported any time soon. GIMP ain't in the Photoshop caliber league inspite of what some people may think.)

        As far as I'm concerned Open Office allready matches up with MS Office. I'm using it both at work and home for all my Wordprocessing and Spreadsheet needs and yes, I do need good MS Office import/export ability. All my colleagues use MS Office, but I have no trouble keeping up with them although Open Office still is a beta. I can't speak about the other programs because I don't use them.

        Hardware compatibility is another problem. With all the winmodems and NICs out there that don't work with Linux how can you expect to get people to use it if you can't network? Replacing the NICs and winmodems isn't always the answer if you've got a cash strapped school.

        I can't imagine many schools using a winmodem for each and every computer. They have a local network and one or a handful of connection points to the outside world. A new NIC is cheaper than one license of Windows, but I don't think many schools needs to replace those either.

        I still like Linux on the servers, but on the desktop, it's got a long way to go.

        I'm not a server guy, in fact I've nerver set up a server in my whole life. I'm only running deskop computers, but I still prefer Linux. Sure, there are a lot of areas that needs to be improved, but there are also a lot of things I like better with the Linux desktops (both Gnome and KDE) than Windows, for example:

        • A lot of standard programs (editors, compilers, graphics tools, webbrowsers, games, scripting languages, IM clients etc) installed and correctly configured by default. I don't need to install them one by one.
        • More themability and eye-candy. I want my computer to be fun and friendly to work with and I like to play around with look'n feel settings. It's fun! :)
        • A good text shell. The MS-DOS prompt sucks.
        • Linux has another kind of user community which I find more fun to be a part of.
        • It's more adapted to multi-user environments. It will be perfect when me and my fiance get kids, I just give them their own account and let them play around, knowing that they can't screw up my files.
        • Most good, standard programs are free. I save a lot of money. :)

        As you can see, there is already a lot of reasons for me to run Linux on the desktop. I'm absolutely more techsavy than the average user (I'm a programmer by profession) and some of the points only apply to me, but quite many do apply to the average user as well.

    • Re:The desktop-revolution begins (Score:4, Interesting)

      by municio ( 465355 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @10:03PM (#3385194)
      IMHO, it's going to be the other way around: people will first switch to open source applications, (StarOffice/OpenOffice for instance, since it works in Windows) and then to an Open Source OS. It's easier this way, and it does more economic sense. I can imagine my company switching to an open source Office suite to save $500, I don't imagine them migrating to Linux to save on a Windows license they already paid for when the bought the computer. Besides, a marketoid who can MS Office can use StarOffice/OpenOffice very easily. If a marketoid has a problem with OpenOffice, I'm sure he will find his way around. But I can't imagine the same marketoid doing a su or changing file permissions. Besides the support team in many companies is made of MCSEs very familiar with Windows and that perceive Linux like a thread to their jobs. But I don't think they view OpenOffice like a thread, since they are not so into MS Office either.

      Once a companies rely on specific open source applications, it might make sense for the market and free developers to target their efforts in providing bullet proof distributions based on specific applications, that hide all complexity to the final user (a la AOL), and gives maintenance responsibilities to the administrators. By complexity I mean very simple things for technical people (file permissions, packages installation, etc...), that look very complex for regular users.

      For know, it's to soon to target the non-technical desktop market. Look at Red Hat, they don't even mention the desktop market. They focus only on the server side.

      Move people first to open source applications, (I convinced 5 people to move over Mozilla on Windows this month on my job). OS will come later.
      • Hmmm... One thing I really suggest to have in desktop Linux
        is to create it without usual UNIX file permissions (!)

        The system of file permissions wiped out - you are essentially ONE and ONLY ONE user of this system,
        all requests to change file permissions ignored, ls -l has no column with confusing rwxrwxrwx
        and instead of it we can put security labels that you can "attach" to files, programs and directories.
        System then check files against programs for consistency of labels

        For example you can have "Private" directory that you can read only by "Private" password-protected "kdedit-passworded"

        It's much more secure than doing magic with -rwxrwxrwx-

        So for desktop system, you'll have

        1. a smooth non-confusing file system
        2. mandatory labeled (and theoretically secure!) security control
        This will be great!

    • Re:The desktop-revolution begins (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chasuk ( 62477 ) <chasuk@gmail.com> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @10:27PM (#3385307)
      Even the most die-hard Microsoft supporters will admit that Linux is viable on the desktop right now.

      I suppose you could call me a die-hard Microsoft supporter, though I tend to consider myself agnostic regarding OS's. However, as I use Microsoft OS's to the virtual exclusion of all others, the die-hard Linux supporters will probably consider me a die-hard Microsoft supporter. The point of this wordy preamble? I am [or might be considered] a die-hard Microsoft supporter, and I take exception to the quote italicized above.

      Linux ISN'T viable on the Desktop right now.

      Linux will be ready for the Desktop when the majority of *neophyte computer users* don't need tech support and hand-holding to use it, or when the tech support which is available is as freely and ubiquitously available as it is for the Windows platform.

      The words *neophyte computer users* were emphasized for a reason. Don't respond unless you have digested them.

      I work in telephone tech support, and I have done so for years. Further, I am the guy who is called by in-laws, friends, acquaintances, and other assorted and otherwise not-even-on-their-xmas-card-list family members when their PC stops co-operating.

      During the day, EVERY day, I get phone calls like this one:

      Customer: "Hello, I use you for my e-mails, and now I can't get them."

      Me: "We are your Internet Service Provider, and you are having trouble receiving your e-mail through us?"

      Customer: "Uh-huh."

      I collect the customer's name, I look their account up, and after I have ensured that their service has not been disconnected due to a deliquent bill, we proceed.

      Me: "Are you connected to the Internet when you try to check your e-mail?"

      Customer: "What?"

      Me: "When you try to check your e-mail, are you sure that you are actually connected to the Internet?"

      Customer: "I don't know. How do I tell?"

      After several false starts we do solve the problem, but the conversation almost always includes moments similar to this:

      Me: "What version of Windows are you using?"

      Customer: "I don't know. How do I tell?"

      Or:

      Me: "What browser do you use?"

      Customer: "I don't know. What's a browser?"

      Me: "The program that you use to browse the web. Do you use Internet Explorer, Netscape Communicator, Opera, or something else?"

      Customer: "I don't know. How do I tell?"

      Or:

      Customer: "I can't read what my friend sent me."

      Me: "What did you send you?"

      Customer: "I don't know, I can't open it to find out."

      Me: "No, I mean did he send you a text file, a sound file, an image, what?"

      Customer: "I don't know, I can't open it to find out."

      Me: "What is the name of the file that he sent you?"

      Customer: "I don't know. How do I tell?"

      Me: "Did he send it to you as an e-mail attachment, or was it sent on a zip disk, a floppy, or a CD?"

      Customer: "I don't know. How do I tell?"

      Or:

      Customer: "How can I get rid of my cookies?"

      I spend several minutes trying to explain one of several different processes, during which time it becomes obvious that the customer has no fucking idea what a cookie even is, but a helpful computer "expert" told him they were bad.

      I spend hours a month trying to explain to people how to install, and remove, various computer applications. In Windows, it is a relatively painless procedure, though it is far from standard or perfect. The customer might have to download a program to help him extract the file he has downloaded, which is always confusing to a neophyte, but they eventually manage. Usually it is double-click and go, for both installation and removal. I say usually: Windows is especially sloppy in leaving fragments of removed programs all over the HD, and in leaving shit in the registry. And DLL hell sucks, but both problems are getting better.

      In Linux, the customer has to understand debs, and rpms, and tarballs, minimum. He has to understand the compile process, and what a dependency is, and that the kernel may be rock solid, but that the Windows Manager or the application he is using isn't. In other words, he has to understand that the stable OS he is using, as a Desktop solution, is just as prone to crashes as Windows, but that if he were running a server it wouldn't crash nearly as often as a server crashes in Windows. That is exceedingly useful to a Desktop user.

      Imagine a conversation with a neophyte Linux Desktop user.

      Me: "What distribution of Linux are you using?"

      Customer: "I don't know. How do I tell?"

      Or:

      Me: "What Window Manager are you using?"

      Customer: "I don't know. How do I tell?"

      I would then spend several minutes trying to ascertain whether the customer was using Gnome, or KDE (all arguments over what a Windows Manager is put aside), or Enlightenment, or...

      You get the idea.

      Now, today, right now, the average Linux user is several times more computer literate than the average Windows user. They are members of the geek-elite. They wouldn't ask questions as dumb as the examples I've given.

      But for Linux to be viable on the Desktop, it would have to embrace the masses of *neophyte computer users* who are already petrified by MS Windows. And MS Windows is pretty bloody simple, in most regards, to Linux, regardless of which distribution or Windows Manager you are using.

      I've been installing Linux since 1995, with Slackware as my first install, and it has improved leaps and bounds, but it is still not ready for the Desktop, the Desktop being that user space inhabited by the non computer-geeks, the computer neophytes.
      • I know an 11 year old girl who can produce web pages in a text editor and is equally comfortable using linux as she is using windows. Her parents think she's a brainiac, but the truth is she just didn't know in advance that linux would be harder. Just as she thinks that using Front Page or GoLive is harder than using NotePad. I quote, "I don't know what all those buttons do, it's easier to just type it." She's learning javascripting from one of the Bible books now, although I am available to "translate" the lessons from the book.

        The point is it's just as easy to tell a friend in need to type "rpm -Uvh" as it is to say "doubleclick this file".

        Linux is not so difficult it's just different and some people are too timid to attempt the adjustment. Think of how AOL spends a billion dollars a year convincing people that they're "easy" to use when in fact all they did was make they're user interface deliberately different from the "generic" IE/NS set. When an AOL user see's me open up Mozilla to a "blank" page they go "What do I do now?" because all the banner ads and popups are missing.

        • Re:The desktop-revolution begins (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Actually, it is FAR easier to phone support command line operations like "sudo apt-get install mozilla" than it is to navigate the maze of varying icons and menus on a winbox.
        • The point is it's just as easy to tell a friend in need to type "rpm -Uvh" as it is to say "doubleclick this file".

          Your point is well made except for this part. How many people are actually going to remember such a long string of unrelated letters, vs. people who will know to double click a file? The idea is to minize those phone calls from your "friend."
        • The point is it's just as easy to tell a friend in need to type "rpm -Uvh" as it is to say "doubleclick this file".

          Surely you gest.

          (a) recognition and memorization are completely different cognitive abilities, and (b) you need to actually work with these people to figure out what the parent poster is talking about. I'll talk about (b).

          I knew this guy in college - physics major, really smart guy. He was doing numerical analysis in Fortran and he decided he needed his own Linux box instead of just using the iron the physics department offered. He bought a system from VA (this was a while ago).

          Mein Gott, the problems this guy had. He never bothered to look up the rpm command. He just used the KDE feature where it would install an rpm once you double-clicked on it. If you think the "neophyte user" will remember that command you're completely wrong. If you think the neophyte user will do a google or apropos search for the rpm syntax, you're wrong. The neophyte user will never even see a demonstration of the rpm syntax.

          One day, he decided to use GNOME instead of KDE. I get a phonecall when he wants to go back to KDE from GNOME. The Hell I went through that day.... No he wasn't using gdm, kdm, just plain xdm. Forget trying to guide him through editting .xsession. I ended up physically going to his machine and fixing it myself. Fortunately, I also enabled ssh that day.

          Week later, I get another phone call. He can't log in using xdm. It took a while to get a good explanation of what was really going on, but I finally figured that logging into xdm was just spitting him back to the xdm prompt. So I tell hime to give me his passwords, and I log into his box. Nothing seems wrong - his .xsession is fine, I tried it myself remotely. Everything in his user account looked peachy. Then I did a "df -h". Turns out he had like 20 gigs empty in /home, but the 4 gigs in / were all filled up. This guy never used the user account that the VA setup program must have created for him. Double-clicking on rpm files requires root privs, so he would always log in as root. Thus, /root was full of crap and /home was completely empty (VA had a nice partitioning scheme which I understood). Problem is, this guy didn't have any idea of what a user even is, so the lecture about not logging in as root probably did nothing.

          Now, you might call this guy clueless. Regarding unix administration, yes, he was completely clueless, but the stuff he was doing in his fortran programs was way over my head. This guy definitely knew his physics, so he wasn't stupid. Problem with us unix folks is that a lot of time we lump in people who don't understand Unix as idiots.

          Me? I love /usr/ports, CVSup, the whole lot. Makes my job easier and more fun. But I know this stuff is not for everybody, and I'm OK with that - I'm not going to install Linux on my aging mother's win98 PC and if my colleague likes using MacOS, that's fine by me - no need to force Unix on everybody.

      • You must not support the same Windows that I do. I just spent Friday night and Saturday morning trying to clean up a botched modem install on a W2K laptop. Finding and deleting files manually, searching and editing the regestry for multiple abandoned keys, frequent reboots. It was my father-in-law's machine. He is more computer literate than most but was completely lost. Don't tell me Windows is ready for the desktop. Its there by default in most cases but that doesn't mean its any better than Linux. At work, we have numerous Unix-flavor boxes that just run day in and day out. We keep Ghost images of our Windows workstations on the network because we don't have time to figure out all the problems that crop up. We just give them a fresh working image and walk away.
        • Just putting my two cents in, but after 3 abortive attempts (Slackware, Mandrake, Debian) I finally got Linux workably installed through Red Hat.

          I'm impressed with it, but it is definitely a work in progress.

          Probably the biggest obstacle is just inertia. Whether it sucks or not, I've gotten used to my Windows box and have amassed the software on it and tweaked the interface that I'm used to.

          Linux also lacks some pretty important software support on the desktop, particularly Adobe's Illustrator and Photoshop.

          And finally hardware support is not out of the box. I still haven't started using my digicam with Linux because I'm worried it will be a long and tedious process.

          That all said, I am very impressed with the potential of Linux as a desktop workstation. I'm really most interested in it as a server and platform for some big number-crunching.

          So we'll see...
      • Linux will be ready for the Desktop when the majority of *neophyte computer users* don't need tech support and hand-holding to use it, or when the tech support which is available is as freely and ubiquitously available as it is for the Windows platform.

        Viable - Capable of living; born alive and with such form and development of organs as to be capable of living; -- said of a newborn, or a prematurely born, infant.

        Viable doesn't mean that it conquers all. It means that there is something there that works.

        In Linux, the customer has to understand debs, and rpms, and tarballs, minimum.

        Why? Minimum, you have to understand debs or rpms, whichever is native on your system. For most major distributions, that will let you install pretty much everything you could possibly want. I have at most two or three packages installed from source hanging around, and none from RPM. You may as well claim that any Windows user must understand zips and rars and isos, minimum.

      • Linux will be ready for the Desktop when the majority of *neophyte computer users* don't need tech support and hand-holding to use it, or when the tech support which is available is as freely and ubiquitously available as it is for the Windows platform.

        The words *neophyte computer users* were emphasized for a reason. Don't respond unless you have digested them.

        I installed Linux (and before you ask: I also installed Windows for him, he is not willing to install *anything* by himself) for one of this kind.

        One month ago, he calls me up for a need for a painting program, so I tell him on the phone: "Type Alt-F2 and then G-I-M-P Enter"

        Problem solved. And much easier than in Windows where I would have to guide him through the start-menu where even I had no idea where the goddamn Photoshop/whatever is.

        Actually supporting Linux on the phone or per E-Mail is much, much easier than supporting Windows over the phone, because you can do pretty everything with the commandline, and simple tasks in one line.

        But how should an OS "agnostic" user who uses exclusively Windows know?

      • You have a strong point that Microsoft Windows is not ready for the desktop. But I fail to see what this has to do with the desktop viability of Linux.

      • If it's a real tech problem you can solve it using ssh shell and motely fixing what is wrong, asuming the support people are talented. If it's a client problem thing unrelated to you (can read friends email), then it's a PR thing. You answer because you care about your ignorant customer, but it's not really your fault, nor Windows nor Linux.
      • People have been using computers with DOS and different variations of Windows for quite some time. I do not think anyone could claim that those systems were consistent or easy to use. They have always been a mess. We just happen to know how to use them.

        Joel addresses the issue of frustration when moving between platforms: little things that are different frustrate people.

        Anyways, if you are just starting to train people (like this is the case), you might train them in Linux or Windows.

        Sure, Linux could use some improvements, but those improvements will not happen in a vacuum, in a lab and then deployed to the rest of the world. Just like Windows and the MacOS they will benefit the most from direct and real life exposure.

        There are a couple of very nice stories that the Linex people have witnesses over the past few days (my favorite one being a sheep sheppard in the region that fell in love with the Linux distribution they had prepared).

        Professors that have offered their input and the help of themselves and their students to improve Linex: This is the kind of thing that you will not see with proprietary software.

        Anyways, we are not *that* far, you are just not used to Linux on the desktop. And it will only get better ;-)

        Miguel.
      • After spending much of yesterday removing the Nimda virus from a friend's computer, I have to laugh at claims that Window's is easy for the neophyte to use while Linux isn't.

        My friend went to MIT on a full scholarship (civil engineering) and to Tufts on a tuition scholarship (environmental engineering). While she has no sysadmin skills she's neither neophtye nor stupid.

        Yet without my help I doubt she would've been able to defeat Nimda in any reasonable amount of time.

        As soon as ESRi releases ArcGIS for Linux (hopefully later this year) she's switching. It will be easier than learning to dodge, avoid, and when necessary remove all the friggin' viruses, worms, and other nasties that keep cropping up in the Windows world. Her GIS tools are the only thing keeping her on Windows. Other than that she only needs a web browser, e-mail client, and Open Office, no problem.

      • I used to do some tech support too, and I remember those people. However, what you don't see in tech support are all the thousands of people in the world who may not know much, but can sit down and figure it out, because they don't need to call tech support. I think most computer users fall into this catagory. If this is true, then Linux is certainly a suitable cadidate for the desktop. Here are two examples off the top of my head:

        Case 1:

        I have a grandmother. She's the stereotypical grandma who doesn't know anything about computers, and calls me on the phone with silly computer questions all the time. However, she was able to use DR-DOS and WordPerfect 5.1 on an old 386 without any problems. Of course, DOS isn't like UNIX, but it's still fairly technical. Back when she had the 386, she had a copy of DOS For Dummies and consulted the book whenever she had a problem. In most cases, that worked fine.

        Case 2:

        My friend at college, who had never used a computer in his life for anything except MS Word bought an old computer for $25. He got sick of Windows 95 and demanded that I install Linux because he heard it ran faster than Windows on old hardware. So, we put Linux on it, and he's been using it every day ever since. My friend doesn't know the difference between RAM and hard drive space, but he can use FVWM2, Pine, and AbiWord without much trouble. I gave him a copy of O'Reilly's "Running Linux" and I've come by to fix a few hardware-related problems, but he's been basically on his own the whole time, and he likes Linux better than Windows 95.

        My Point

        Clueless newbies are perfectly capable of running UNIX, especially in corporate environments where the computers are managed by a sysadmin. All the complicated stuff that average users would need to do can be done from graphical utilities like Nautilus or Konqueror. Using Linux in the home may be more annoying than it is worth to Joe Sixpack, but that's just because most i386 UNIX distros are targeted towards corporate customers, rather than home users. Even those products aren't any more complicated than DOS was.

        I think the fact that we're computer geeks is irrelevent. We weren't born computer geeks, after all. Everyone reading this post can remember a time when they didn't know anything about computers, but we all managed to learn UNIX. I don't think I'm that much smarter than anyone else is, in fact, I don't have much natural ability in math or science at all. I just sat down and learned how to use it. Anyone else could, if they had a good reason to do so.

        That last part is the problem. While I think that Linux offers real advantages over Windows in a corporate or institutional setting (LAN of managed PC's, and so on), Linux isn't any better or worse than Windows or MacOS or BeOS or anything else. Once you can play your MP3's, run office apps, and connect to the Internet, you've done everything a home user needs to do with a computer. Unless Linux does something cool and amazing that Windows can't do, there is no incentive for Joe Sixpack to switch.

        Steve
      • Linux ISN'T viable on the Desktop right now.

        This assertion is based on the assumption that ALL desktop users are beginners. I use Linux on my desktop, and it is viable for me. Please don't make sweeping generalisations. Many users do know more about computer users than the people you deal with on the phone.

    • Even the most die-hard Microsoft supporters will admit that Linux is viable on the desktop right now.

      Even the most die-hard Linux supporters will admit that Windows is viable on the desktop right now. Unfortunately it has to be better before most people will consider it a reasonable alternative. It also needs better marketing, because effective (not necessarily honest) marketing is so often what decides the purchasing decisions that people and businesses make. Whether or not GNU fans want to sell their soul and push boundaries to gain market share is another issue, though.

      Microsoft supporters usually cite "migration costs" or "training costs", or other shortsighted reasons why people should not switch to Linux.

      This is shortsighted because corporations and organisations come and go -> If switching costs is the only thing in favor of Windows, then it will lose slowly, but steadily.

      I'll agree that it's shortsighted, but I also don't see a serious difference between Linux supporters citing "software purchasing costs", which for the most part is just a fixed cost in the first place. Once you've bought it, you have it.

      I've had Win98 on one of my boxes for three years, I've installed the updates when they came along, and it hasn't cost me much more than what I paid for it. It's the ongoing maintenance that's the big cost to a lot of businesses. Linux usually requires much higher paid and harder to find staff than Windows requires...

      Yes it's partly because of the education system and the Microsoft monopoly and the unfair popularity of winmodems from companies that don't release alternative drivers, but it's true. And it's unlikely to be too difficult to put together an argument showing this to be more expensive than the occasional Microsoft upgrade.

      Personally I like using linux/bsd/unix/whatever more than Windows. But I think it's naive to talk about free software as an inevitable dinosaur that will soon rise up and thwart Microsoft out of existence. Five years ago, people were saying that exactly that would happen within months, and people never stop saying it. It also never really happens.

      When it comes down to it, Microsoft is full of very smart (albeit cut-throat competitive) business people who, whatever you might read around slashdot, are not stupid. Microsoft could be split in half and it'd still come out on top one way or another. This doesn't mean that Microsoft doesn't make mistakes or that people won't switch away from Microsoft products; all of that is just part of the calculated risk taking that any business does. But it's not going to collapse under its own stupidity any time soon.

      That's how I feel about it, anyway.

      • Windows was viable on the desktop. Then they changed the license.

        I no longer accept that Windows is viable on the desktop. Nor will any system be where you must give someone else the right to "add, remove, alter, or delete" any files that they choose without either asking your consent, or even notifying you.

        Sorry.

    • I use Linux on my main desktop machine (and a good handful of servers) and I certainly prefer Linux (even on the desktop) to anything MS has produced so far...

      However, is this not supposed to be about choice? If someone wants to use an MS solution, let them. Or MAC/OSX, Sun, Amiga or a TRS80 for all I care. Last time I checked, my Red Hat T-shirt said "revolution of choice", not "zealots will conquer the earth" nor "MS must fall".

      Don't care about modding, this is getting stupid. Zealots (any cause) usually don't help the "cause".
      • However, is this not supposed to be about choice? If someone wants to use an MS solution, let them. Or MAC/OSX, Sun, Amiga or a TRS80 for all I care. Last time I checked, my Red Hat T-shirt said "revolution of choice", not "zealots will conquer the earth" nor "MS must fall".

        Sorry, but all the advantages (great software library, good education system, good driver support) of Windows are results of their surpreme marketshare.

        If their dominating marketshare goes away, all their advantages will go away and they are pretty much toast.

        So "revolution of choice" is EQUIVALENT to "MS must fall". Microsoft can't survive on a leveled playing field.

        And MS knows that pretty well, that's why they care so much about that 1% - 2% of desktop-Linux users.

  • Use the AOL strategy (Score:3, Funny)

    by fungus ( 37425 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:01PM (#3384987)
    The government has burned 80,000 CDs with the Debian Linux operating system and software ranging from text editors to an Internet browser. The disks will be sent to the area's 670 schools and distributed to the public through newspaper inserts.

    1- One could send millions of CDs, containing an idiot proof linux system, to every computer owners and in computer stores. Add on it a free access to the internet for X months with a random isp, and configure it to be the easiest to use as you can.

    2- ???

    3- profit.

    It would make Linux SO popular!
    • One could send millions of CDs, containing an idiot proof linux system, to every computer owners and in computer stores. Add on it a free access to the internet for X months with a random isp, and configure it to be the easiest to use as you can.
      Why don't we leave MSN out of the list of ISPs.

      Also, Linux is a great operating system, but it isn't meant for people who are new to computing or haven't been trained on it. There is no idiot-proofing of Linux. There is with Windows: you know, after you delete a file you have to say "Yes, I'm sure", then "Yes, I know it's an application, and I know I won't be able to run it after I delete it, but I deleted it because I didn't want to run it anymore". Then you go the the recycle bin. Lather, rinse, repeat.
      • I would have to completly disagree with you. The reason people use windows is because they have always used windows. The only reason people don't use linux is because 1. They already have windows. 2. They don't know how to install linux (those people can't install Windows either). or 3. They don't even know it exists.

        Linux (ok I am really talking about an installed system running KDE or GNOME) is not hard to use for the point and click user. Its surly not any harder then windows. And they are less likly to get one of those pesky BSOD's [cafepress.com] (or a crash like equivilent). In order for people to start using Linux it has to be used in Schools (High Schools, and secondary), OEM's need to offer it as the default OS (A Majority), And businesses need to use it as thier Desktop of choice.

        Short: People can't use linux because they never have!

        • You are correct about that, and it's good to hear someone say it. However, what i find lacking is simple installation tools. People can install Wazoo messenger or Didlybob app, whatever they find/need/want, in windows, with a wizard. Give linux a good wizard install, to $user_account or $all_user_accounts, using a semi-root account as needed, something that can't really harm the system but change user accounts perhaps. Do that and I'll be _happy_.

          Oh yeah, and make KDE faster. with an mp3 player, a movie player, a web browser, an office suite, an IM app, and a file manager, Linux will have itself a viable user operating system. IMO, XMMS, XINE, MOZ etc, OO/abi/Kword, Gaim will handle those. But someone suggest to me a good file manager (I love MC but it isn't quite what i want?)...

          ok i'm rambling now. I think we are just about there. Users will come, commercial applications will follow. Suggestions?

      • I learned computers using DOS. I then moved on to Win 3.1. Then to Win95. I learned as I went. Someone could learn Linux or any other Unix-like OS the same way. Start with the basics and move on to the more complicated stuff.

  • It's too bad mostly schools/governments too poor to afford Windows crap are the only one's switching to Linux. I wish more schools would do it so they could spend more money on kids and higher teacher's salaries instead of helping Gates pay for his fricking 10000 sq/ft house. I'm sick of my tax dollars being squandered on these fat cat bastards.
    • As long as Linux gets adoped somewhere, that's what is important. Many of these kids might grow up to be exeptional programmers and do some really cool stuff one day, but they need to be exposed to Linux first. One thing MS has against it, they don't really give you any tools to make your own stuff anymore. Then again I really can't afford (legally) to buy MS stuff for the sorts of things I wan't to do either. Looking at a Webserver, interacting with a SQL database (just to tinker with it) is way out of my price range with an MS solution.

      Hmm... Mozilla RC1 seems to be sort of buggy with forms...
    • Well, Norway isn't among the poorest countries on earth, though research and education is not getting it's share of the wealth. Yet, there is a project [skolelinux.no] going on to get Linux into schools, supported by some good computer firms as well as governmental grants. They're still testing.

      A friend of mine got Woody installed on all the computers where he is currently working, he is the only teacher aged under 50, but the other teachers love it, and they will probably make a complete switch to Linux (the Debian Woody-based distro the School Linux project is producing) in a short while.

      There has allready been a few schools in Norway that has made the transition, for example Høle [gs.rl.no]. They're still struggling with some governmental standards requiring M$ products, though.

  • I've wondered for quite some time now about the need for programmers to be bilingual, especially with things such as Linux. I know most of the documentation has been translated into various languages, but it is impossible to translate the actual code. So to be a sysadmin for a Linux based network, I would think you would need to know at least some English.

    This brings up the point of cost. Sysadmins in Spain that are bilingual will probably charge a slightly higher fee than those that speak only Spanish. In my experiences, getting Linux running properly requires mucking about in .conf files and code and what not, whereas an MS box will essentially set itself with only the occasional button to press or box to check. I think the end result will be lower cost savings over other alternative OS's than previously predicted, although it will definitely still save them a significant amount of money over an MS "solution".

    • In any discipline that invloves multiple nationalities, a single language is generally chosen as the common language (and yes, it is usually English). It makes more sense for sysadmins in Spain, France, Japan, etc to learn English than for Programmers to learn Spanish, French, Japanese etc.

      As for bilingual sysadmins, my bet is its tough to get a job as a sysadmin in any country if you can't read English.

    • Re:bilingual? (Score:3, Funny)

      by glwtta ( 532858 )
      Why on earth do you need to read source code to be a sysadmin? Hell, our sysadmin can barely read at all, and the place is still running. Are you like the FUD consumer of the year?

  • I hope they've considered all of the (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Slash Veteran ( 561542 ) <slashvet@hotmail.com> on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:13PM (#3385013)
    ancillary costs. Not to prompt a flamebait, but if you only compare the costs of the various OSes to purchase, you're missing the boat.

    Linux is free to acquire, but it is certainly not free in terms of support costs, training, finding compatibility solutions (when someone in the windoze world sends you that office document), etc.

    None of this is insurmountable, but much of it is often overlooked.

    JWZ himself said it best: linux is only free if your time has no value.

    Now stand back and think about that. So true. Open Source is still the way to go, but don't forget the cost of Open Source in your financial rollups.

    • Re:I hope they've considered all of the (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Join the Great Slashdot Blackout [slashdot.org] April 21-27

      You are aware that today is the 21st, right?

    • Um, this is a school, not an office. Chances are they'll have to have a few people who "know what's going on" to keep everything running even if they went with windows. Training will have to happen anyway, reguardless of if they went with an Apple, MS, BSD or whatever. And if their teachers are anywhere as near as bad as the ones I had, no ammount of training will help anyway =) Compatability isn't much of an issue either with Open Office. I haven't had any regular document not open with Open Office, aside from some wacked out spreadsheets that causes Exel to die half the time.

      So basically I'm sure they'd still come out ahead. Linux takes time to learn yes, but then again much of what you learned years ago still works with Linux today. There's something to be said about needing to re-learn things that change (often for no good reason) - something that happens much more often with Apple/MS. So yes, "linux is only free if your time has no value", but I also consider that to be a good investment that doesn't depreciate with time.
      • Chances are they'll have to have a few people who "know what's going on" to keep everything running

        I laughed out loud when I read this. Public schools are worse than offices because the teachers often don't want to seem incompetant in front of students when it comes to computers.

        As someone who's had to deal with public schools and computers for quite some time, I can't help but think linux is a poor choice from a usability stand point and I wonder what exactly they plan on doing with the computers. Maybe they only intend to browse the web with them.

        • Yet somehow they muddled through the days of DOS and AppleDOS.

          Once you get over the culture shock of make, downloading and installing software for Unix is no more complex or intimidating than dealing with InstallShield. Past that point, Linux is using the same interfaces present under Windows.

    • The cost of free-as-in-beer software (Score:5, Insightful)

      by The Monster ( 227884 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:55PM (#3385170) Homepage
      linux is only free if your time has no value.
      That is precisely why Open Source software is cheapest in the most economically-depressed areas. For the money that would otherwise go to licensing fees, you can hire and train lot of local talent to run things. And becasuse it's OS, they can learn it inside and out, instead of just learning the interface that has been exposed to them.
      • Windows is not exactly trouble free or completely user-friendly, even for fairly advanced users. Training is needed no matter what. Eliminate the license fees, and you can invest more in training. Or hardware...
    • These kids have little enough time as is with a computer, the cost of an less-than-stable OS far outweighs the cost of training the computer teachers in Linux. Also, most computer teachers I know would train themselves in their spare time.

      Note also that this province is *bragging* about their 15:1 computer-to-kid ratio. These student don't have much time on their computers, and if they're anything like the kids I know, they have an intense desire to poke and prod just about everything. Not a good combination with an OS that gives a page fault in Kernel32.dll at a sneeze. I know I would find that discouraging. In fact I did, that's why I run debian myself!

      Websurfing done right! - http://www.stumbleupon.com [stumbleupon.com]
      • You'd think this would have started dying off after the release of Win2k over 2 years ago.

        Win2k and XP rarely crash. I run 2K..the only time I reboot is when I either apply patches (every couple months), or am replacing faulty hardware.

        Actually my record with crashing has been far worse using KDE or GNOME.

    • linux is only free if your time has no value.

      Not to be a unix zealot, or anything but that quote bothers me, because it implies that Linux maintainnence is a nightmare while other OSes are point and click. That is simply not true.

      Didn't have a chance to see MS shops when nimda virus roled along did you? Or constantly taking down their servers for the latest service pack? Or Exchange is "acting up again"

      The point is there are major time cost for maintannence of any operating system.

      I management solaris servers currently ( linux only as my desktop for now ). And we're constantly on the look out for critical patches, etc. Software screws up just like on any other OS ( eg. very expensive iplanet ldap starts to use 100% CPU for no apparent reason ) My point is the windows people are busy doing the same kind of thing, only with Exchange, IIS, etc.

      That view that UNIX total cost of ownership is higher due to higher maintainence cost is incorrect. If you have to hire a small group of competent MS admins to run your MS shop, it would cost you the same as to hire a group of UNIX admins.

      Please not buy into that MS marketing crap that any modern Enterprise class OS is point and click

    • I get so tired from listening to people saying how easy windows is and how difficult linux is.

      I don't understand either of them. I have installed them both on my computers. For both, I have to call someone or spend a lot of time looking if I have a problem.

      I used to understand dos and windows 3.1. I knew my way around windows9x (I'm lost when it comes to that 'registry' stuf). But now I have to use windows 2000 and everything has moved. It looks alike, but I can't find anything anymore. And I'm absolutly more computer literate than all of my friends.

      Joe user doesn't know the difference between internet explorer, netscape navigator, mozilla, opera or whatever.
      Joe user doesn't know the difference between star office, microsoft office or whatever.
      Joe user doesn't know the difference between windows95, windows 2000 or red hat 7.2. He or she will take whatever is installed on the computer and learn to live with that.
      If Joe user gets a word document sent to him that he or she can't open, he or she will panic and call the helpdesk:

      simple solution: have them reply with the following message: I can not read your message. please use a different format like PDF or text.

      A school can even impose a file format like star offices file format. It's not like you are going to offend customers.
    • Linux is only free if your time is of no value.

      Well yeah, and Windows is only however-many-bucks per desktop if your time is of no value.

      Unless you mean that you never have to mess with Windows to get it to do what you want.

    • JWZ is simply an idiot.

      ALL computing enviroments have system administration overhead. Even WinDOS is not immune to this. Infact, this aspect of WinDOS is why many of us switched to desktop Unix.

      We wanted something that was more robust and needed less babysitting.

      When compared to the "predominant desktop platform", Unix is far more tolerant of being deployed and then forgotten about.

      One must seriously wonder what alternate reality of PC based computing Jamie suddenly dropped in from.
    • JWZ himself said it best: linux is only free if your time has no value.

      This rates as a troll, or at least startlingly misinformed. JWZ said this circa 1995, when the state-of-the-art in packaging was .TGZ, and the only real configuration tools were XF86Config and vi.

      How long is this going to be regurgitated by second-hand accounts of the Unix-Haters (sic.) Handbook? [art.net]

      Do your own thinking, and validate your criticisms. I admire JWZ too, but he has always shot from the hip - and this is just plain stale to boot!

  • "The Great Mexican Linux Roll Out" will happen at about the same time as "Duke Nukem Forever Going Gold" or "The Apocalypse"

    Hope all you editors have a six-pack of beer and a lawn chair in a shady spot....It could take a while....

  • My school uses windows and novell.

    It Sucks

    They would save thousands if they switched or had never even bothered with windows.

    At least it's nicely insecure :)

  • Microsoft (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Satai ( 111172 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:24PM (#3385059)
    I wager it will take a very short amount of time for Microsoft to propose "free" Windows software for the school district. They've done it before - for the exact same purpose.

    • Re:Microsoft (Score:5, Informative)

      by uebernewby ( 149493 ) on Sunday April 21, 2002 @09:47PM (#3385140) Homepage
      And then, once the schools are hooked, they'll take it back. Over here in the Netherlands, the big thing in school computing right now is that Microsoft is starting to charge 'normal' fees for licenses, after having given schools a substantial discount in the past. Guess what? The schools are hooked on MS Software (not that I think that that's necessarily a bad thing from a maintainability point of view), but now that's it's going to cost them an arm and a leg (still less than you'd pay for the same number of MS licenses, but schools in NL are piss poor), they're hooked on MS only grading software, educational apps and such, and even though sysadmins with a clue would like to switch to linux for cost reasons, they can't.

      Methinks those Spanish guys are doing a very smart thing, it's just that they won't pull it off if they can't get *every* developer of educational software and software necessary to run a school's administration to make the switch with them, they'll be fscked.
      • Fscked? I don't think so. How many of us as kids would have died to write our own school's software? Other than having to get a couple of outside programmers to go through the code so that Johnny doesn't always get straight A's, and to make sure that children don't learn to spell in 37334 Hax0r.
    • Pssst! Hey kid you want some drugs? Oh, that's ok, you don't need any money. I'm such a nice guy, I'll give it to you free! Yeah, I thought you wouldn't pass up an opportunity like this, you'd be crazy to.


      Next upgrade cycle...


      Oh, you want some more now? Well, I can't give you any, but here's what I'll do. I'll give you a substantial discount, I guarantee you won't find a deal like this anywhere.


      Fully addicted now...


      I want full price for every hit, plus any hit you share with a friend. And if I catch any drugs on you that you don't have a receipt from me for, I'll sick my goons on you and pound you into a pulp. Just pray I don't alter the deal any further.


      Sounds like MS has been taking business classes in the Hood.

  • The region is already ahead of the national curve as far as school computer inventory in its schools; Extremadura boasts 15 to a computer, compared with 33 pupils per computer country-wide.
    And now, with the money they save by using Linux instead of Microsoft, they can buy more computers, further improving their relative standing with the rest of Spain. Ahh, the power of open source. And they won't have to download weekly bug patches either.
  • If it gets adopted by many schools in Spain - it will have the beneficial effects of teaching a whole generation about Linux!
  • It's not too surprising to see countries like Spain implementing Linux in their school systems and government offices. What other choices do countries in this position have? M$ has only increased the cost and support of their crap-lications over the last few years, biting their own ass. I mean really, who the hell wants to pay $299 US for M$ 2000 Pro? Brilliant move Spain. Who's next?
  • Sure, 'Linux is only free if your time has no value'. But so is supporting anything that isn't in mainstream distribution.

    Linux is in its teething stages in terms of grabbing hold of the end-user market. As more of the pioneers in rolling out network wide linux systems take the plunge, more and more aspiring techies will recognise the need for linux support and development.

    it's a short term price for a long term gain!
  • "First Post" in Spanish. [slashdot.org]

    --
  • This isn't necessarily a good thing.

    Sure, it may seem like a good thing now, but you just wait five years, when suddenly all of the good Linux jobs will be taken by those darned Spanish!

  • What Mexico did wrong. (Score:2, Interesting)

    by damu ( 575189 )
    I remember back when wired had some stories about the innovative change which Mexico was trying to make, in most schools. To bring Linux to the forefront and allow all school children to have access to a computer running Linux. What happened? After poop management, little to no training at the particular schools, and very little support from the actual implementors, most computers now are running win95 or a derivative there of.


    This, on paper, seems like a great idea, however to actually pull it off it is going to be very difficult, and there needs to be some strong support from the very top people, if not, this move will suffer the same faith which it had in Mexico. Buena suerte mis amigos. dam()
  • One of the main problems I have run into with using Linux on various computers is figuring out how to get everything set up for the machine's various hardware quirks.

    One of the main advantages of doing this in a school is that schools tend to have computers that were all ordered in one massive batch so that every classroom , office, etc, has the same machines.

    It should thus be easy for a particular site to customize their own in-house distro to install easily on all their computers.

    A great further advantage in using Linux in schools: More people are going to become familiar with it... and be more likely to set it up at home, etc... reducing the dependency on other, less desirable systems *coughWINDOWScough*.
  • Odd timing, given that Debian 3.0 (Woody) is due to be released (fingers crossed) on the 1st May.

    Have they burnt their own (nearly)3.0 or gone back to the old 2.2?

    Of course the neat thing about Debian is that it is possible to create your own pre-3.0 CD, and then it's a one-liner to upgrade to the full release when it appears. However I suspect they've 'played safe' and gone with the old (released in 2000) version.
  • Windows took over The Desktop because:
    a) It was simple to install
    b) It was all there was (money/OS choice)
    and
    c) Everyone was using it.

    Can you think of a better way to mould a linux distro into these features? Easy! Give a distro to an entire country and learn as you go. After a while you get:
    a) Less installation problems (install something on 1/2 million machines and you find the bugs)
    b) Countries like this can't afford M$ licence prices (then again, who can?)
    and
    c) A definition of 'popular' is Suited to or within the means of ordinary people: popular prices. (Dictionary.com [dictionary.com])

    No reason to put people down for attempting to make the best out of a situation.

  • Microsoft and Mexico (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Meech ( 166762 )

    The other day, the NY Times had an article about how Microsoft wanted to help out Mexico get online. I wonder if this had anything to do with it.

    Here is a link, (sorry but there is a registration)
    http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/technology/17MEX I.html [nytimes.com]

  • From the Article:
    Governments in developing regions worldwide have eagerly embraced the open-source movement as a way to trim fat from their budgets. But free software initiatives fail when officials believe they will no longer have to invest in their IT systems. Take the case of Mexico's Red Escolar, launched in 1998 to install Linux in the country's 126,000 public schools. The government simply shipped CDs to schools without training teachers how to use the operating system or contracting programmers to administer it.
    It is trivial, and it has been said a thousand times, but it seems to be necessary (in view of what happened in Mexico) to emphasize it: you HAVE TO INVEST MONEY if you are going to use free (as in beer) software. Extremadura is going to invest money, it just turns out that it will be much less than what they would need to invest with proprietary software. This is good news both for the Free Software movement and for Extremadura. Best luck folks / buena suerte amigos !!!

  • Linux extramadura (Score:3, Informative)

    by pubjames ( 468013 ) on Monday April 22, 2002 @02:27AM (#3386081)
    Appears that these guys actually have their own Linux distribution called Linex [linex.org]. I think this is actually the distribution that will be distributed to schools etc. I expect it is based on Debian.

    If you can read Spanish, there's more discussion about this on the Spanish version of Slashdot, Barrapunto [barrapunto.com] And here's the Extramadura LUG [guple.org].

    It's great they have their "own" version of Linux - people are more likely to use it because they are proud of their region. Of course because 95% of people are clueless when it comes to computers, they will probably think that it has been invented there, just as many people believe Bill Gates invented "Windows". But in this case it's a good thing if people use it out of pride and it boosts uptake of Linux.

    By the way, Extramadura is I believe the poorest region of Europe, not just Spain. But they have great weather, wine and food there, and the people really know how to have a good time (which could be why it's one of the poorest regions...)

  • Hi,

    I can see from the article on mexico, and from my own experience trying to propose a free software alternative to a non profit organisation, that the problem of adopting a completely new or different operating system is not just about the price of the software. So my question to any experts out there is : how do you propose people get this going in other provinces - from getting the proposal out(I live in barcelona - I bet the local catalan linux translation group would help...), lobbying for it, getting political support, and getting the smarts and the time for people to install it, and from there to the point where everyone is actually happily using it and benefiting from it?

    If it can be done, it's probably a great benefit, but I can see how it's just a waste of money if it's not done right, and especially, if it's just not the right time or place to do it...

    Ale

Slashdot Top Deals

"I am, therefore I am." -- Akira

Close