Vietnam Going Open Source 617
An anonymous reader writes "Great article today on SiliconValley.com about Vietnam's solution to software piracy: eliminate Microsoft. Government tech officials are promoting a plan that would require all state-owned companies and government ministries to use open source by 2005. And they would require all computers assembled in Vietnam to be sold with open-source products installed on them."
OB Vietnam quote (Score:5, Funny)
Lieutenant Torvalds in Apocalypse
Re:OB Vietnam quote (Score:4, Funny)
YAOB Vietnam quote (Score:3, Funny)
Re:OB Vietnam quote (Score:2, Funny)
Colonel Gates in Apocalypse .Net
MS next strategic business relationship move (Score:3, Funny)
"Me love you long time."
(Mod me -1 Troll!)
Re:MS next strategic business relationship move (Score:5, Funny)
Re:idiot Howard!! (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you see on the streets of Viet Nam? Foreign motor vehicles, everywhere. Mostly Korean or Japanese, along with some European ones (chiefly Mercedes Benz) and a few American ones
The WTO (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but you've bought into the propoganda of the US and the WTO. "Free trade" has never been anything but a weasel word along the lines of "bipartisanship." What the person who says it really means is that they want things to go their way, and they want a nice word to demonize their opponents who don't knuckle under to their demands. The WTO basically exists to ensure the continued dominance of the Western world over the rest of the planet. Just look on their increasing emphasis on intellectual property laws which only benefit rich countries like America, Japan, and the European nations at the expense of Africa and South America. Particularly, look at the WTO's opinions on medical patents and patents on genetically engineered organisms. The only honest areas for debate in the WTO are when the G8 countries disagree over something, like Europe's refusal to accept GM food, Japan's rice tariffs, and America's steel tariffs.
The WTO is nothing but an undemocratic avenue for the industrialized world's major business interests to foist treaties on us that must be turned into laws like the DMCA or the EUCD.
Re:The WTO (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:idiot Howard!! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, while the rich countries' labor force is much more efficient relative to poorer countries, they are not as efficient as their wealth suggests (again relative to poor countries.) In a world of completly free and fair trade, you Americans can't possibly ask half the wages you now get. That is doubly true for Europe. It goes without saying rich countries won't give up their relative wealth just because. Restriction of trade is one of the more humane ways of keeping it that way, all alternatives -short of actually making rich people as productive as they should have been, IMHO an impossible feat- involve some sort of destruction of competitiveness of others. Sabotage, terrorism and outright war are time proven ways of doing that.
Re:It's Even Worse Than It Appears (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Catfish (Score:3, Funny)
Re:idiot Howard!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The Vietnamese government has a problem with software piracy indeed, but they're trying to do something about it by encouraging open-source software, which is a perfectly legal (and human) way of producing and releasing software...
- They are NOT saying:
"Fuck the US, fuck the West, let's copy M$ software like nobody has copied before."
- They are NOT violating any international rules of trade by encouraging open-source software.
And then you come around, calling them greedy comm
More information on Vietnam open source efforts... (Score:5, Informative)
There's a interesting presentation [sourceforge.net] linked to from there also.
Re:More information on Vietnam open source efforts (Score:2, Funny)
This would completely eliminate government piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This would completely eliminate government pira (Score:2)
Not necessarily.
You might still have people distributing Open Source Software illegally -- i.e. binary only distributions.
Wouldn't that count as piracy too?
Re:This would completely eliminate government pira (Score:2)
NO. (Score:2)
I love the smell of GNUpalm in the morning. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I love the smell of GNUpalm in the morning. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Excuse me, but may I say WTF?
Since when is the EU "extremely socialist" or "totalitarian in nature"? Since when is it even a country?
In fact, as you seem have written off most of the planet with that throwaway statement, let's move on and look for more of the same...
This is a very bad thing for the American software industry (and by extension programmers.. you know, some of these companies give you a paycheck?)
Hmmm, except maybe all those programmers who aren't American, who maybe might benefit from the new market in OS customization and development that was just opened up.
Commercial software is NOT a bad thing, only the abuse of a monopoly on commercial software.
You can't just assert that and wave your hands around in a "pfft! it's obvious!" manner, you'd have to back that position up.
Sounds silly, but the person who started this whole free software thing was in fact American, and has pretty convicingly argued from first principles that in fact proprietary software (which I assume is what you really meant) is a bad thing. I'm not saying I agree with him, just that if you want to be taken seriously you should tell us why proprietary software is not a bad thing.
We shouldn't discourage companies from producing quality software by threatening to boycott them.
Presumably they wouldn't be boycotted if people were 100% happy with what they produced and had no complaints.
Re:I love the smell of GNUpalm in the morning. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
The countries looking at Free Software are the countries in which the price of labor is so low that it is cheaper to pay someone to fix Free Software than it is to purchase proprietary software.
Basically these countries are poor (primarily due to their past economic policy choices), and they are looking for an inexpensive way to create a computing infrastructure. Free Software is basically a sure thing in this type of environment. Heck, there are plenty of countries in the first world that are looking at Free Software to save cash. In places like Vietnam where labor is so ridiculously cheap there is no way that Microsoft can justify their premium prices.
Basically, Microsoft is simply failing to be competitive in these lower-margin markets. Vietnam can't afford to pay Microsoft (or Sun, or IBM, etc.), and so their best bet is to take the excellent body of Free Software and put their own (inexpensive) hackers to work on it.
It's the Free Market at its finest.
Slippery Slope? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slippery Slope? (Score:2)
Vietnam will still violate the GPL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vietnam will still violate the GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
It's given away for free. The only thing they can do which is a violation is to add to the codebase but not contribute the code added (or claim ownership of the code and then sue IBM).
I don't think having a whole country supporting an OS can be that bad of a thing.
SCO warning (Score:4, Funny)
Re:SCO warning (Score:3, Funny)
Losing business? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, that could lose the country some contracts for companies that might want to build facilities there to assemble computers..... As much an advocate I am for open source, this sounds like a bad implementation of law.
Re:Losing business? (Score:2)
Re:Losing business? (Score:2)
I wouldn't say that manditory OS lockin is an appropriate measure, but neither is the backstabing monopolization that COTS players have been doing for the last 20 years. If you have to play hardball to compete with the US backed IT giants, then so be it.
Re:Losing business? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Losing business? (Score:3, Insightful)
It costs more for retail version of the OS than buying it OEM.
>if the government sets a mandate of using linux and OSS on all of their machines
Its not only goverment needs.
From the article:
And they would require all computers assembled in Vietnam to be sold with open-source products installed on them.
So if I buy a computer for home, the government is telling private companies what to inst
Re:Losing business? (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that Vietnam is doing this is that they have to lower their piracy ratio or the won't be allowed into the WTO. That leaves Vietnam with two choices. Either they can start cracking down on piracy, or they can mandate that all computers be installed with Free Software on them.
Of the two the Free Software route is certainly easier. They can go to the WTO, and with straight faces say that all of the PCs shipped in the country ship with legal software. Sure, there will still be a bustling software piracy business going on underneath the surface, but Vietnam will be able to say that they are taking steps.
This is especially true because it would appear that Vietnam is very serious about shifting the government and government held businesses to Free Software. This, IMHO, makes perfect sense. The cost of using Microsoft software is simply too high for countries like Vietnam where the average yearly income is less than $500. Microsoft's TCO numbers assume that the cost of labor is going to be far higher than the cost of software licenses, and in Vietnam that simply isn't the case.
In Vietnam it probably *is* cheaper to fix Free Software so that it does what they want than to purchase software from Microsoft.
In short, this moves makes a whole lot of sense. Not only will this help jumpstart their own local software industry, but it will lower costs and cut down dramatically on piracy as well (which, of course, is the major goal). When the WTO treaties were written up the first world countries probably thought that this would force Vietnam to purchase more software. Instead it drove them to consider Free Software.
Re:Losing business? (Score:3, Interesting)
That reminds me of the origins of Star Office. Apparently Sun (a rather large organization) looked at the cost of buying MS Office licenses for all of its workers, looked at the cost of buying the rights to a software suite and modifying it to their needs, and realized that it was cheaper to just do it themselves. Of course, there were other reasons, but the economies of Micro
Re:Losing business? (Score:2, Interesting)
My
Not necessarily a good thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
Open source is supposed to be about freedom and choice. Seems counter productive to me, to force people to use open source. If open source advocates try to encourage this kind of behavior, how are they better than Microsoft?
Re:Not necessarily a good thing. (Score:2)
We're probably not. We're just not a monopoly that illegally leverages its dominance in OS'es to try to take over other market segments. When we get to that point, then you can bitch at us.
Re:Not necessarily a good thing. (Score:2)
That hasn't been determined in Vietnam.
>When we get to that point, then you can bitch at us.
This is not a "ends justifies the means" or "we will stop kill people when all our enemies are dead".
OpenSource is about choice. It is different from automatically removing a choice (MS).
Re:Not necessarily a good thing. (Score:2)
Re:Not necessarily a good thing. (Score:2)
While in principle I agree with you, and you do have a good point, I must point out, that today many computer vendors are practically forced to ship computers with Windows. Having some vendors forced to ship something else might be a good way to change that, does sound like more fair competition. Of course the problem is, how do we know when Microsofts position have been weakened enough to let go again?
Re:Not necessarily a good thing. (Score:2)
But by default you are encouraging people to look at a new system, which also happens to be free.
Miguel
Re:huh???? (Score:2)
Correct, the government of Vietnam can decide what it wants about its country and people. Does that mean I should support their decision and other people should?
If the Vietnam government decided that any vietnamese citizen over 30 was too old and started killing them all, I guess that'd be ok because the government of Vietnam can do whatever it wants.
From the article (Score:5, Funny)
Giving away innovation smacks of Communism. We need to invade Vietnam before this "giving away" idea spreads throughout Southeast Asia.
Soon Cambodia may start giving away innovation, and then Japan and Australia will be isolated and they'll fall as well.
My god
Where are Robert McNamara and Henry Kissinger when you need them?
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Kill them all, let Gates sort 'em out
Re:From the article (Score:2)
Funny, but just to nitpick, you can't "give away" anything if you don't own it. Communism is based on the premise that everything is owned by a small elite (government) through force, rather than distributed among the population through voluntary trade.
Re:From the article (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, of course, that's exactly how those in power would describe (and justify) the system. What idiot would actually agree to a society where "all property is owned by an elite few by force"? By promoting the ideas of "collective ownership" and the "common advantage", those in power can polish the turd until it shines enough fool the ignorant masses.
Re:From the article (Score:4, Interesting)
Communism proposes that voluntary association (i.e. free trade) among human beings is evil, primative, barbaric, immoral, and counter-productive to the "needs" of "society". The theory proposes that if human beings were FORCED to "contribute" to a common goal,society will benefit as a whole, and inequality would be non-existent.
(In truth, the foundation and first prerequisite of communism is inequality. Communism could never exist without force, and there is no greater inequality than the "legal" ability to initiate force as a means to an end. And that is exactly what those in power need to do to initiate and sustain the communist state.)
The theory can be reduced to "slavery works", or "freedom doesn't work". When exposed, communism sounds just as bad in theory as it works in practice.
Open Source != Linux! (Score:3, Interesting)
Get Used To It (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like Coke being just another carbonated gut-rot drink, one of many, but many people generically refer to all pop as "Coke".
And for the GNU/Linux fans, sorry. Just be proud that GNU is the secret sauce of Linux. But don't expect Joe Sixpack to refer to _the operating system_ as GNU/Linux.
Piracy Shift? (Score:5, Funny)
Nation's solution to software piracy: "Eliminate Microsoft"
Surely this will only shift the piracy to open-source applications. Why, by 2005, I'll bet there will be hundreds -- nay, thousands! -- of copies of Redhat and Mandrake circulating around Vietnam for free! And thousands of applications too! The horror!
Hmmmmm. (Score:2)
this is ill-conceived (Score:3, Informative)
Re:this is ill-conceived (Score:2)
2) Essential becuase of network effects and inertia. If Microsoft and Linux have the same effective purchase cost (because of piracy) why would you overcome the inertia to switch?
3) Necessary because of trade regulations that require piracy numbers to go lower. No license to purchase, no piracy. Thats why it needs to be a law.
Re:this is ill-conceived (Score:3, Insightful)
From the article:
We are trying step by step to eliminate Microsoft,'' said Nguyen Trung Quynh of Vietnam's Ministry of Science and Technology.
>Necessary because of trade regulations that require piracy numbers to go lower. No license to purchase, no piracy.
Piracy usually means doing things not within the goverment's control so how can they legistlate something that should be legistated already?
I can still get and install W
RTFA! (Score:3, Insightful)
They need to the the piracy rate down so they can meet previously-agreed WTO and WIPO limits. They are having lots of trouble stopping piracy because of (I guess) cultural reasons, the population simply don't recognize "piracy" as being wrong. Mandating OSS is percieved as the only realistic way of achieving the desired reduction in piracy.
Kinda ironic really, that the WIPO are basically forcing OSS onto them :-)
And (Score:2)
MS could have prevented this in the first place had it adjusted prices accordingly for different countries. If it were $25 or even $50, the piracy rate could be controlled better. But the Vietnam govt knows it has NO chance of reducing piracy when its people just cannot pay the price.
So the pragmatic solution is to manda
Re:RTFA! (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't have to guess. It's quite simple, really, and it's not because of any cultural blindness to the concept of piracy, whether or not there is any such blindness. The reason piracy is so prevalent is solely economical. The Vietnam version of Windows costs $140, while the annual per capita income of Vietnam is $2250. Given the choice, would you pay Microsoft 6% of your annual income, or would you try to get it for free? By comparison, Windows costs $300 in the US, while the US per capita income is $37600. This amounts to only 0.8% of the average American's annual income versus 6% of the average Vietnamese's. Imagine if Microsoft tried to charge the same relative prices here in the US? Relatively, it costs 7.5x as much in Vietnam, so try to think about how many people would pay, say, $2250 for their copy of Windows, and how many would steal it. And then, to combat the rampant piracy, the government would have to act in some way, and it is considerably easier to make a new regulation about open source than to start fining/jailing people for refusing to pay for something that no one in their right mind would pay for. It's ridiculous, and Microsoft should know this.
Re:this is ill-conceived (Score:2)
It seems they already did that concluded that in their own interest they'd better make free software a matter of policy. It's simple reallly, if they don't take this step it's only a matter of time before the BSA goon squads arrive, backed up by U.S. trade representatives. There's just no way they can afford to build an information infrastructure if they have to pay Microsoft's asking price.
It will be interesting
Supply and demand? (Score:2, Insightful)
That's still a weeks pay for the average worker by their figures, Microsoft's greed seems inordinate expecting people to pay $140. Well, they seem to have totally priced themselves out of this market.
in other news... (Score:5, Funny)
WHY IS THIS FUNNY? (Score:2)
Re:WHY IS THIS FUNNY? (Score:3, Informative)
.COMmunist (Score:4, Interesting)
The real problem in Vietnam (and most other countries run by communist, oligarchical governments) is that IP laws are treated as optional...something that you vaugely enforce in order to appease trade policy negotiators from 1st world countries. Switching to "Open Source" won't fix that problem.
Re:.COMmunist (Score:2)
If the Vietnameese government can't enfore the licensing terms of propritary software, why would they enfore the GPL or any other Open Source license?
Aren't communists supposed to help each other?
Re:.COMmunist (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but would that be a problem for free software? If you talk to Richard Stallman, he looks forward to the day where we don't have any software copyright at all; until that day we have the GPL. The purpose of GPL is to keep others from putting their own licence on modified free software restricting it from use. If there was no copyright, then there would be no legal mechanism to restrict the way people use code, and thus the GPL wouldn't be necisarry. The only mechanism for hording source code would be to keep it secret and well guarded. However, the Vietnam "IP problem" is that there is rampent software copying. In a society like this which considers copying software to be sharing, not stealing, the people would not like companies that held back code, and would have no qualms with leaking that code.
The complete lack of software copyright is exactly what the FSF would like to see. GPL'd software is a step in the process; a feasibility experiment you might say. The purpose of copyright is to provide insentive for the author to create more works. If free software succeeds in displacing proprietary software, then it proves that there is plenty of incentive to create software, even without copyright. In that case copyright is unnecisarry, and even harmful to society because it limits who can use the software without justification. If it turns out that the incentive provided by copyright is necisarry, then the free software movement will never be able to produce enough software as good as proprietary software so it fizzle out or remain on the sidelines, and no one will be harmed.
Note: I did not extend my arguement to all works. Some may need the insentive that copyright provides, others may not. So Vietnam's copyright policies (not IP - there is no such thing as IP) may be bad for some industries, but if the FSF is right (which I think they are) it is not bad for software.
When you program open source.. (Score:2)
Looks like... (Score:2)
Does it matter?
The only solution, really (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the inevitable result for most Microsoft forays outside the developed world. Add to that Microsoft's problem of having saturating the markets in the developed world and, as a public company, needing to continue an unsustainable double-digit growth rate. Add to this their market extensions into non-computing markets are lack-luster and largely failed. You have to be worried if you own a lot of MSFT stock or if you are overly invest simply due to being an employee.
Love my Panther (he says writing this on WinXP!)
JGSki
Stock price? (Score:2)
Re:Stock price? (Score:2)
Microsoft between a rock and a hard place (Score:3, Interesting)
a) this move will greatly reduce software piracy, and
b) we all know that Microsoft loses zillions of dollars per year software piracy
Does it follow that Microsoft will be supportive of Vietname moving to Open Source solutions?
Funny situation, because it puts Microsoft between a rock and a hard place - continue losing money in the conventional way (piracy), or lose money in a new way when the few paying customers stop buying MS products altogether. Sweet!
Re:Microsoft between a rock and a hard place (Score:2)
To lose money by theft, you are claiming that that people would by your product if it were not available by the black market. This isn't necessarily the case as the music industry is finding out. I'll download a song like Vehicle by the Ides of March, but if it weren't available I wouldn't go buy their greatest hits.
Instead of using pirated windows, these people will now use fr
siliconvalley.com - are they new? (Score:2)
I'm all for linux but describing open source as if its still 1997 is getting old quick. Huge corporate interests are involved and companies such as IBM, HP and many others have plugged boatloads of developers into coding open source software. You have to wonder where this "silliconvalley.com" lived over the last 5 years....
That's a really good answer by Vietnam (Score:5, Insightful)
In October 1998, the United States announced a new Executive Order directing U.S. Government agencies to maintain appropriate and effective procedures to ensure legitimate use of software. In addition, USTR was directed to undertake an initiative to work with other governments, particularly those in need of modernizing their software management systems or about which concerns have been expressed, regarding inappropriate government use of illegal software.
The United States has achieved considerable progress under this initiative. Countries that have issued decrees mandating the use of only authorized software by government ministries include Bolivia, China, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, Israel, Jordan, Paraguay, Thailand, the U.K., Spain, Peru, Greece, Turkey, Hungary, Korea, Hong Kong, Macau, Lebanon, Taiwan and the Philippines. Ambassador Zoellick was pleased that these governments have recognized the importance of setting an example in this area and expects that these decrees will be fully implemented. The United States looks forward to the adoption of similar decrees, with effective and transparent procedures that ensure legitimate use of software, by additional governments in the coming year.
Countries which convert to free software become compliant. The alternatives are converting to free software, paying millions (sometimes billions) to Microsoft, or facing trade sanctions by the US. That makes free software look really good.
The whole Special 301 process may thus backfire against commercial software vendors. Microsoft is going to have a fit over this.
Re:That's a really good answer by Vietnam (Score:3, Informative)
100% complaince. Just not exactly what MS had in mind. Will it work? Well who cares. Everytime MS has to kowtow to some tiny little country by lowering the price or reducing restrictions other countries are taking notice. After munich would any decent goverment negioting a new MS contract not mention Linux? Now if the US is leaning on you to combat piracy just mentio
OSS versus Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
Just blink for a second Microsoft filing chapter 11 tomorrow. How many people will lose their jobs? System integrators? Partners? Businesses that rely on them for support? Home users of ma and pa homes? They have build a co-dependent ecosystems that kept the sofware business afloa
Re:OSS versus Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
As all of their contracts are nullified, thousands of businesses to provide "support" for Microsoft products would spring up.
IT departments would then take a long, hard look at the other options offered to them. Novell? UNIX? Linux? Apple?
It isn't like the only option is Microsoft. Yeah, it would be bad for consumers, but it isn't like people will stop writing software for an OS with such a huge installed
Help Microsoft save some money. (Score:3, Funny)
From the Article:
I wonder if Microsoft brings makes more than 40-50 million a year profit in Vietnam? If not, this new policy could save them money! :)
Perspective (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, Windows and Office costs a third of your annual income. According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis [doc.gov] the per capital annual income of the US in 2002 was $30,832.
Therefore, Windows and Office would cost you a staggering $10,277. It is not surprising that piracy is rampant!
Also assuming Thailand has the same per capital annual income as Vietnam, then even when Microsoft reduced the price down to $40 it still would cost slightly a nasty $3,083 in the US.
you're looking at the wrong data (Score:3, Insightful)
Open Source changes the balance (Score:4, Interesting)
As more industrial and post-industrial nations put patent and copyright restrictions on software (or, as the case in the USA with SCO vs. Linux, try to make open-source illegal altogether), development will shift to areas of the world where the amount gained by bringing in the open-source software industry is greater than the amount lost to entrenched software companies.
In the long-run fifty year period, efforts by the first-world to restrict dissemination of information by means of the Internet will backfire as the new on-line libraries of data shift to distant locations that are less affected by the legal means used by monopoly media corporations to shut them down. As the libraries shift, so will the technical expertise migrate to the third-world. And, as the technical expertise of the information age moves away from the software cops of the media monopolies, so with the creative community that is now locked to the media corporations.
In the long run, the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and other enforcement arms of the first-world media monopolies will destroy the very media conglomerates that they are trying to protect.
Curing the disease by killing the patient. (Score:2, Insightful)
Next, we could reduce air pollution by 99% by destroying all the cars and walking everywhere!
Progress!!
My worry..... (Score:5, Interesting)
It will/should reduce piracy, enforce the notion opensource applications and operating systems are viable MS replacements on servers and on desktops.
One thing concerns me though.
I'm just worried that the situation will move from one form of infringement to the next.
I mean, what if GPL isn't respected? Will the Vietnamese government act? If they couldn't control the piracy in the first place, doesn't that raise any doubt with their ability to uphold the GPL?
Or, will Vietnam abandon GPL'd software for "truly free" (bsd-style licensed) software later on?
Two quotes (Score:5, Insightful)
About time too (Score:2)
It's a laugh to see the Microsoft fanboys bleating about "freedom of choice" being compromised. The words "dose of one's own medicine" spring to mind. After years of not being able to buy a laptop without Windows pre-installed, now the tide is going to turn. The components used in the construction of this compu
I wish journalists (and everyone) would understand (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not costing Microsoft jack, because that $40-50 million never existed. If you could have never had the money in the first place, then it's not costing you anything.
This is going to be the theme for 2004 (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, it's the Talinux and Osama Gnu Laden, striking fear into the hearts of Microsoft dealers and agents everywhere.
Seriously, how many such battles can Microsoft wage at once? OK to send the shock troopers to Munchen, to Costa Rica, but it's starting to become a conflaguration.
Laugh, but I predict the last stronghold of Windows will be the US, while in a few years only the rest of the world will have gratefully converted to Linux and FOSS and forgotten the dark ages of 'software license fees'.
Drastic, but perhaps necessary (Score:2)
I believe in freedom as much as the next guy, but if it was my responsibility to bring down piracy so that my country could join the WTO, I can't say I wouldn't be as drastic. Choice is great, but without access to the internati
How much are computers there? (Score:3, Interesting)
What kind of hardware is available/common in that part of Asia?
Microsoft will never admit this publicy... (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems like a sound decision... (Score:3, Informative)
In a country where the general population simply can't afford Microsoft licenses open source is a sound solution. Especially considering the anti-piracy agreements made between the US and Vietnam. They have to do something or face consequences.
I found this interesting:
" But Microsoft products are everywhere in Vietnam, and very few shell out the money for licensed copies. Almost 97 percent of the programs used in Vietnam have been illegally copied, costing Microsoft an estimated $40 million to $50 million a year."
Given that the per capita annual income is roughly $420 there is no way that the piracy is costing Microsoft anywhere near $50 million a year. This is the same kind of logic that the music industry uses to try to justify and push through draconian laws.
A company only takes a loss when they actually lose a sale not every time someone pirates their product.
Propaganda (Score:3, Interesting)
"Almost 97 percent of the programs used in Vietnam have been illegally copied, costing Microsoft an estimated $40 million to $50 million a year."
I doubt many, if any, of these people would pay such a large portion of their annual income for this software. Microsoft would never get this money, they should at least appreciate the exposure. After all, Microsoft is 90% marketing and 10% functionality...
Ahh, random statistics make me feel so impotent... er, um make that important!
Re:Interesting... (Score:4, Insightful)
I see very little difference in ease of use between a (well) pre-configured Linux computer and a Windows computer. If anything, a Linux system can be easier to use for a beginner than Windows. No virus worries, for example.
We're not talking about compiling the kernel here, just Internet, Office, mail and IM (which covers 99% of usage).
Re:Grinning from Ear to Ear (Score:2)
Free for just one low payment of $199 with the purchase of your computer.
Heh heh.
Re:so microsoft gains? (Score:5, Insightful)
It is something unique about software that very few people get.
Hell if everyone actually paid for their copy of ms software I think they might have a huge problem in finding a bank big enough to keep all the money in.
So to answer your question MS is losing here. Just one more corner of the world where that 95% is just getting a tiny bit smaller. Is this going to mean MS is going to go bankrupt? No of course not. Don't be silly. But an MS with say "only" a 80% share is going to mean that you can no longer just assume that every one uses Windows. Oh everyone can read this Office document.
Remember only zealots want MS destroyed, or if they are windows zealots linux destroyed. The rest of us simply want to choose the best for their needs and be reasonably sure that most data can be exchanged freely between systems.
Re:so microsoft gains? (Score:5, Insightful)
While pirate copies of Windows might not be the best thing that could happen to Microsoft, it is surely not good to the free software movement either. Getting a lot of pirate copies of Windows replaced with free software will be an advantage to the free software movement. You know the major problem in the computer industry right now is, that there are way too many Windows systems. There are so many Windows systems, that you more or less have to make something compatible with those. Microsoft knows that, and they make it as hard as possible to interoperate with Windows. Getting rid of copies of Windows will decrease the amount of power Microsoft has even if it doesn't immediately give Microsoft less money.
Re:No open source alternative? (Score:3, Insightful)
Write one? Or spend a little of that IT budget they just saved millions on to pay someone to write one?
Re:Added bennefit: older computer work better. (Score:3)
Sure, there are other distros. Suse wont even load on the system.
Mandrake is redhat by a different name.
The irony is that Win98 loads just fine.
Re:Exactly..! (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that this mandate is based on simple economics. Vietnam can't afford to purchase the commercial software they are currently using, and they can't get into the WTO unless they seriously curtail their use of pirated software. Vietnam didn't have any choice but to go with Free Software.
In a country where the average income is under $500 a year it simply makes good economic sense to fix Free Software so that it does what you want over paying for expensive commercial software licenses.
In