Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Business Software Linux

UK Government Reports Linux is 'Viable' 177

Posted by michael from the fashionably-late dept.
CProgrammer98 writes "The Beeb is reporting that The UK Office of Government Commerce has published their final results following trials on the use of OSS and especially Linux and they conclude that Linux is a viable option for government use. From their summary: 'The report shows that Open Source software is rapidly maturing, offers significant potential benefits to government and should be actively considered alongside proprietary alternatives. It concludes that decisions should be based on a holistic assessment of future needs, taking into account total cost of ownership, with proper consideration of both proprietary and open source solutions.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Government Reports Linux is 'Viable' More

UK Government Reports Linux is 'Viable'

Comments Filter:

  • Comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:51AM (#10652321)
    From: "Steve Ballmer"
    To: Anonymous Coward
    Subject: Customer Focus: Comparing Windows with Linux and UNIX
    Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 15:44:29 -0700

    In the thousands of meetings that Microsoft employees have with
    customers around the world every day, many of the same questions consistently
    surface: Does an open source platform really provide a long-term cost
    advantage compared with Windows? Which platform offers the most secure
    computing environment? Given the growing concern among customers about
    intellectual property indemnification, what's the best way to minimize
    risk? In moving from an expensive UNIX platform, what's the best
    alternative in terms of migration?

    Customers want factual information to help them make the best decisions
    about these issues. About a year ago, a senior Microsoft team led by
    General Manager Martin Taylor was created to figure out how we could do a
    better job helping customers evaluate our products against alternatives
    such as Linux/open source and proprietary UNIX. This team has worked
    with a number of top analyst firms that have generated independent,
    third-party reports on cost of acquisition, total cost of ownership,
    security and indemnification. Some of the studies were commissioned by
    Microsoft, while others were initiated and funded by the analysts. In each
    case, the research methodology, findings and conclusions were the sole
    domain of the analyst firms. This was essential: we wanted truly
    independent, factual information.

    At the same time, our worldwide sales organization is going even deeper
    with customers to understand their needs and create a feedback loop
    with our product development teams that enables us to deliver integrated
    solutions that support real-world customer scenarios, and
    comprehensively address issues such as manageability, ease of use and reliability.

    I'm writing to you and other business decision makers and IT
    professionals today to share some of the data around these key issues - and to
    provide examples of customers who opted to go with the Windows platform
    rather than Linux or UNIX, and how that's playing out for them in the
    real world. Much more information on this is at
    www.microsoft.com/getthefacts.

    This email is one in an occasional series of emails from Microsoft
    executives about technology and public-policy issues important to computer
    users, our industry, and anyone who cares about the future of high
    technology. If you would like to receive these emails in the future, please
    go to

    http://register.microsoft.com/subscription/subscri beMe.asp?lcid=1033&id=155 [microsoft.com]
    to subscribe.

    TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP AND ACQUISITION COSTS

    In the past few years, you haven't been able to open a computing
    magazine or visit a technology Web site without running into an article about
    Linux and open source. Not surprising: who doesn't like the idea of a
    "free" operating system that just about anyone can tinker with?

    But as the Yankee Group commented in an independent, non-sponsored
    global study of 1,000 IT administrators and executives, Linux, UNIX and
    Windows TCO Comparison, things aren't always as they seem: "All of the
    major Linux vendors and distributors (including Hewlett-Packard, IBM,
    Novell [SUSE and Ximian] and Red Hat) have begun charging hefty premiums
    for must-have items such as technical service and support, product
    warranties and licensing indemnification."

    Yankee's study concluded that, in large enterprises, a significant
    Linux deployment or total switch from Windows to Linux would be three to
    four times more expensive - and take three times as long to deploy - as
    an upgrade from one version of Windows to a newer release. And nine out
    of 10 enterprise customers said that such a change wouldn't provide any
    tangible busine
    • It may come as a surprise to Steve Ballmer, but Microsoft's stranglehold on the operating system market is doomed - and if it folds to Linux or Sun or Apple or any other organisation that supports open standards in its operating system, there will no longer be any reason for organisations to support Microsoft. With any of their products.

      Hear that noise, Mr Ballmer? That is the sound of in [slashdot.org]-evit [slashdot.org]-a [slashdot.org]-bility [slashdot.org].

      -- james

      • Linux, Windows, and the Ultimate Victor (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Dink Paisy ( 823325 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:21AM (#10653120) Homepage
        Linux is a growing factor worldwide, but from what I've seen, Microsoft's doom is in the very distant future. For the moment it seems that they are still increasing their market share.

        Apple continues to lose market share, as they have for a long time. Even with the introduction of Power Macintosh G5s, new Power Macintosh G5s, and the new iMac G5, growth of sales of Macintosh computers haven't kept up with the overall growth of the PC market. Apple is a profitable company in little danger of disappearing in the near future, but it is in even less danger of becoming a dominant force in the overall PC market.

        Linux is gaining traction in industry, but it seems that it is still mostly in customers moving from other UNIX systems. Sun, HP, SGI and IBM are losing the low-end UNIX workstation market to Linux. The mass migration to Windows has stopped, but Windows is still taking a little bit of that. A more common path I've seen is a move from proprietary UNIX to Linux. With Linux comes cheap x86 machines. Shortly after the x86 machines arrive people start running Windows. That is, the migration goes proprietary UNIX->Linux->Windows. Overall I have seen more Linux to Windows migrations than the other way around.

        I don't mean this as doom and gloom to Linux. Proportionally, Linux is growing much faster than Windows. Linux is also improving much faster than Windows. As the installed base grows bigger, more services will become available, and Windows to Linux migrations will become more viable.

        Hmm... let me make a WAG. Microsoft is really concentrating on security now. I think that Microsoft will handle security issues just as well as they have handled stability issues. That is to say in ten years Windows security jokes will be a cliche that out-of-touch Slashdot readers make, and get corrected on by the more normal users.

        At that point, there will be some other big issue. I propose (another WAG) that it will be how well the operating system supports new hardware models, and highly parallel personal computers in particular. Hardware will move from todays fast single-threaded processors to processors that run a single thread not much faster than today's processors, but can run many threads in parallel. Windows and Linux both have trouble with scalability now. In this future scenario it is quite possible that one operating system will be four times faster than the other. If you want Linux to beat Microsoft, make sure that Linux is the one that is four times faster.

        • With Linux comes cheap x86 machines. Shortly after the x86 machines arrive people start running Windows. That is, the migration goes proprietary UNIX->Linux->Windows. Overall I have seen more Linux to Windows migrations than the other way around.

          That's pretty interesting. I'd like to read what Microsoft's take is on this is since it would seem in some situations, Linux is actually expediting migration from Unix > Windows.

          I'm curious, do you think that if Microsoft were to get into the OSS bi
      • Hear that noise, Mr Ballmer? That is the sound of in-evit-a-bility.

        Be careful what you say! I know Neo, and Steve Ballmer is no Neo!
    • What I find interesting is how many of the problems and costs he's talkiing about seem like they would disappear if Linux were to ever really get off the ground.
      • Ever heard of a circular argument, or a self-fulfilling prophecy?

        Any line of questioning that begins with "Why don't men wear skirts?" is going to come around to an answer which can best be paraphrased as "Because men don't wear skirts". Similarly any line of questioning that starts "Why are recreational drugs illegal?" will be answered with "Because recreational drugs are illegal" although probably not in those exact words.

        It's the same with Linux. Ask "Why do so few people use Linux?" and the answer
    • In the West, people respect intellectual property. The rate of piracy of software is about 15%.

      In this climate, open source software like Linux and Apache has a good chance of seizing a large chunk of their respective markets. Such software is free, and service is low cost due to a supportive community of geeks willing to offer free advice via various bulletin boards and chatrooms.

      By contrast, Linux has little chance in China. In China (which includes Taiwan province and Hong Kong), all software is ess

      • Part of that is correct, except that china, like many of us, essentially doesn't trust microsoft. The chinese have for a long time been supporters of linux as seen in this article here [china.org.cn] and here [builder.com]
      • This is one of the stupidest comments I have read in a while.

        Do you understand that the important thing about free software is not acquisition cost? The other advantages apply to China just as much as the West. Also, remember that a lot of formerly state owned businesses are consolidating and ending up with significant overseas (eg US, EU) operations. It won't be viable for MS to let them get away with it to maintain market share, unless they want to abandon all licencing revenue. Doubtful.

        On the consumer
      • "In the West, people respect intellectual property."

        So you say, while probably running a pirated copy of Windows XP. Even if you don't, take a look at your teenage son. He's probably download "kewl warez" from Kazaa all day.

  • Now when will the US government do this? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Silverlancer ( 786390 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:53AM (#10652335)
    Has the US government already stated that Linux is "viable," or is their vision still blocked by a large round pig known as Microsoft?

    • Re:Now when will the US government do this? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by The-Bus ( 138060 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:05AM (#10652422)
      Which always made me wonder, does the USDOJ use Linux at all after hounding Microsoft for so long? Netcraft indicates Solaris for their web server [netcraft.com], so that could be good news... But what are the clerks running? I wouldn't be surprised if they were still running terminals.

      Anyone know?
      • Terminals? I can't speak to the USDOJ but the overwhelming quantity of government computers (as far as what the end users see) are Wintel PCs, many of them sold by IBM well past the point where IBM's PCs were actually relevant (which is to say, during the microchannel 386 days) and they use 3270 emulation (or similar) to talk to a mainframe application.

    • Re:Now when will the US government do this? (Score:5, Informative)

      by kc0re ( 739168 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:14AM (#10652491) Journal
      The US Government has stated that Linux is a viable and valuable resource, and although it must be secure (duh), it is encouraged that more OS's besides Microsoft's should be used. Diversity is important. Linux is authorized for use throughout the government, and actually is used alot more than you would think.
      • it is encouraged that more OS's besides Microsoft's should be used. Diversity is important. Linux is authorized for use throughout the government, and actually is used alot more than you would think.

        Unfortunately the Navy has implimented a brain-dead, microsoft only, across the enterprise, $8 Billion (yes, that is a B) contract call NMCI adminstrated by EDS.

        The contract was designed for typical office use with no thought how it would work in a Development, Research or Industrial environment which the Nav

    • Well lets see, nope. They use and add to it. (Score:5, Informative)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:17AM (#10653080) Journal
      You can say a lot about the US goverment but the part that actually does things is hardly linux hostile.

      Linux is used by the fbi for forensic research. The NSA added valuable code to linux to make it a lot more secure for the user and didn't even add any backdoors for evil agents to activate your computer over the net and hypnotize your dog into telling on you. NASA uses it in some roles. The army has switched from windows for it future soldier computer system to linux because they said that windows sucked donkey balls and even with billions to throw at it they couldn't get it stable were linux could and could do it on cheaper more robuust hardware. Well they didn't say as goverment never uses statements shorter then 10 pages but that is the gist of it.

      So where the british goverment has said that linux can be considered, the germans have one town swithing the US has billions invested in it AND is giving back to the world free open code that did something amazingly usefull.

      MS must be having a fit. Loosing contracts as the US army is not good.

      It knows it can't compete at the top with companies like SAP. It says it doesn't want to but really it can't Not just that it ain't got the code. No one in their right mind would a major supply system on an OS everyone knows crashes. Often. (No don't tell me how XP is much more stable, when boeing is doing last minute ordering a reboot costs millions.)

      And now it is loosing contracts to people who really should buy into the MS spin hook line and sinker. Some geeks running linux is bad enough, but generals buying it? What next? The suits at wall street, OOps to late. The suits at IBM? Oops to late.

      So the US is plenty linux friendly. Just in a different way. Munich buying linux is nice for IBM and Suse (or was it redhat) but it means shit for the rest of us.

      NSA adding security features as opensource to linux is very very nice indeed. Thank you american taxpayer for supporting our communist OS.

  • Lowest bidder, anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by drlake ( 733308 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:54AM (#10652337)
    If the Brit government is anything like the US government, dealing with open source software may cause a cognitive short-circuit when they try to figure out how to handle bids on something that's essentially free...

    • Re:Lowest bidder, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by iBod ( 534920 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:12AM (#10652473)
      The OS may be free but complete solutions aren't.
      Organizations (govt. or private) invite bids for Solutions, not operating systems. An OS is only a small part of the solution.

      The current UK govt. has a terrible track record on It projects. The go back time and time again to the same suppliers that failed them and overran their budget to alarming proportions (notable names here include: EDS, C(r)AP Gemini, Arthur Anderson - the usual suspects...).

      The cost of a desktop/small-server OS is almost incidental to the cost of a major IT project.
      • The current UK govt. has a terrible track record on It projects. The go back time and time again to the same suppliers that failed them and overran their budget to alarming proportions (notable names here include: EDS, C(r)AP Gemini, Arthur Anderson - the usual suspects...).

        The US government isn't much better. How many times has the IRS attempted to modernize? I think that they're still using punch card machines yet.

    • whats being bid on? (Score:2, Informative)

      by gimpboy ( 34912 )
      While most government contracts do go to the lowest bidder, they are typically grouped together such that software is only a part of the bid (e.g. hardware, software, support, etc.), or the software might even be specified (150 computers with at least 512 mb of ram,...., running windows xp, with ms office and 2 years of support). I dont think they would take a bid for "100 license of an operating system" since the end use will probably dictate the operating system being used.

      So most bids will include that

      • Re:whats being bid on? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by iBod ( 534920 )
        >>While most government contracts do go to the lowest bidder

        I respectfully disagree. Contracts rarely go to the lowest bidder, govt. ones especially.

        Most govt. contracts go to outfits that the purchasing agency feel most comfortable with, totally *regardless* of cost.

        You know. Those firms where the head of said department (or indeed the minister) can look forward to a lucrative, stress-free, post-political career as a non-exec director on (or 'special advisor' to) the board.

        One or two of the curr
        • I dunno how it is over there in the UK but basically the US has two types of programs; underfunded and overfunded. The overfunded ones (usually either the defense program, or stuff intended to take away/limit the rights of the citizenry) work as you describe. The underfunded ones go to the lowest bidder. Among the underfunded government programs, we will find education. Thus, the cycle continues.
        • > Most govt. contracts go to outfits that the purchasing agency feel most comfortable with, totally *regardless* of cost.

          Translation: ... the vendor who supplied the most blowjobs and nice lunches and the best quality cocaine.

    • ...how to handle bids on something that's essentially free..

      I guess that's why there's now such a market for packaging linux and asking for a small fee for the pretty picture or even a nice cardboard box. SuSE, Redhat, etc are trying to be "enterprise" versions of linux where you get the same stuff but someone actually bothers to put in a bid and gets maybe $50-$100 for their trouble when it hits the buyer that this is a great idea.

  • The Queen (Score:4, Funny)

    by danormsby ( 529805 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:54AM (#10652342) Homepage
    So will the Queen [netcraft.com] moves back to Linux now?

    Her son [netcraft.com] is a Solaris person.

    • Re:The Queen (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yes, I'm sure Charlie took time out from his chin-augmentation therapy to personally say 'Netcraft confirms it... BSD is dying'

      • Re:The Queen (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        First the dodo died, then Dodi died, then Di died, then Dando died... Now is a bad time to be Dido!
    • ...what distro would she use? And would she grant it a royal warrant?

      I think it would be cool if say, every box and/or CD of the official SuSE Linux distro had the royal arms stamped on it, surrounded by the phrase "By Appointment to her Majesty the Queen". Maybe Novell could put the parliament buildings on the box to make it look a bit like the label on a bottle of HP sauce...

      mmmm.....HP sauce...

  • Wishful Thinking I Fear :( (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cheezemonkhai ( 638797 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:55AM (#10652350) Homepage
    It's not like the British Government listens to anybody anyway (Well except for Dubayew), so why will they listen to this.

    I am personally sick of windows worms and viri. Even will a fully updates system with the latest AV definitions you still have the hastle of sorting it out when the AV finds one that it has pulled down.

    My Point - Love to see it happen, but not holding my breath
    • I agree : in the few cases where I can see my employer using Linux, it'll only be in order to deploy SuSe or RedHat distroes because they are officially supporting Oracle so it's not that they are endorsing the Open movement but rather that they are just deploying gratis certified software onto cheap hardware.
    • I am personally sick of windows worms and viri.

      You are sick of windows worms and men? What is the plural of 'virus'? [reference.com]

    • Re:Wishful Thinking I Fear :( (Score:4, Interesting)

      by goatan ( 673464 ) <ian.hearn@rpa.gsi.gov.uk> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:30AM (#10652635) Journal
      It's not like the British Government listens to anybody anyway (Well except for Dubayew), so why will they listen to this.

      Your Getting UK Government confused with Tony Blair he would have no impact on whether Linux is used by Gov departments, It is a business decision for the departments themselves this study is a guide for them not TB.

      My own department has recently swapped contractors from Accenture to IBM mainly because some of our managers are interested in taking a closer look at Linux, this is before this report came out.

    • You sir, are an idiot. You do know that don't you?

      The government actually cares very little about what OS is used. At most a couple of mid-grade civil servants might care but usually it's down to the suppliers.

      Here's a random mix of technologies I've used whilst working on big government projects:: NT, Solaris, (mumble, mumble boxes I can't talk about but definately do not run anything from MS) and we used: log4j, struts (ok so that's a mistake), eclipse, Apache (web server and xml signature library) in

  • Cool, please inform the Royal Navy (Score:5, Funny)

    by philbert26 ( 705644 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @07:57AM (#10652357)
    Windows for warships [theregister.co.uk] is scary.
    • Don't worry - we'll sell them off to our allies, like we did with our submarines.

      • Re:Cool, please inform the Royal Navy (Score:5, Funny)

        by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:30AM (#10652630) Homepage Journal
        Don't worry - we'll sell them off to our allies, like we did with our submarines.

        British arms dealing --- making the world a safer place through incompetence!

    • This submarine has committed an illegal operation and will now fire all its Trident nuclear missiles.

      Scary.
  • I hope that this comes into fruition- Hopefully that will mean our tax payers money can be channeled into other things instead of micosoft fees.
    • Really... You got to be joking. You definitely forgot the nasoanal intercourse performed by The BLiar before all elections since coming to power. He does it in a well known building by the railway near Reading. I bet that he will do it this time as well.

  • Not exactly tricky! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How much of our tax payers money was needed to come to this astonishing conclusion?
    • Well, they've had a public consultation that's lasted about a year, so probably it has occupied all of one medium-senior civil servant's time for this period, that'd probably be about GBP 60,000. Then there would be that civil servant's secretary, who probably earns something like GBP 30,000. On top of this, there would have been reports commissioned from research agencies, probably another GBP 100,000 there. Publicity, arranging a web server for the consultation documents, general administrative cost pr

  • How about just picking the best for the job? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Neil Watson ( 60859 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:08AM (#10652446) Homepage
    Why are we always breaking software into open and proprietary? Why can't people just create a prioritized list of requirements and then use it to pick the software that fits the best for them?
    • Repeat after me: we hate Microsoft/(name your proprietary software maker here).

      I guess someone needs to go to Open Source re-education camp again...

    • That's actually what this is about. The government is publishing the results of their consultation on OSS. They're essentially telling all government departments: when you're buying a new IT system, make sure you consider an open source alternative. It's OK if that's not what's right, but you have to at least consider it. And, if you have two systems that can do the job equally well for similar prices, and one is open source, favour the open source one.
    • It looks like that's what the report is telling us to do, actually. It's just saying that there's no reason to exclude free software from consideration.

    • Re:How about just picking the best for the job? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Gopal.V ( 532678 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:33AM (#10652658) Homepage Journal
      Hmmm.. what does mine include (if I was a non-US government).

      • Being a government I want to be socially responsible and spend taxes as locally as possible (or outsource your OS needs to Redmond ?.)
      • I don't want FBI to put backdoors in my apps
      • So I need a good security audit to be done by my technical people
      • I don't want to depend on a single country/company for all my software
      • So I need to pick and choose who can modify it
      • And change it after I've bought the software

      So what all fits this cloth is only Free Software. The same amount paid to Alan Cox's hardware might be a LOT better for Britain than paying that to Microsoft's (or SCO Unixware's) learjet budget.

      Hear all those who clamour about outsourcing, why don't you see that Britain can do local spending of taxes this way . The only viable OS right now for that task is GNU/Linux.

    • Why are we always breaking software into open and proprietary?

      Because there is a solid break when comparing most proprietary software to FOSS. Proprietary software companies design their software so you can't easily switch to anything else. FOSS doesn't "lock the exit door" on you with software patents or proprietary data formats. You want to leave a FOSS program? Fine, leave and take your data elsewhere. Want to leave Microsoft? While it's possible to extract your data they purposely make it very diffi

      • While this clause is rarely used Bill Gates once said he'd terminate all MS Windows licenses if the US Govt broke them apart. While a quick retraction followed, the point was he could legally do this.

        I have a feeling that this was a baseless threat - if he tried to pull off something like that, the resultant outcry would have caused Congress to pass an exception to the copyright laws, just for Microsoft software. Somehow I don't think that's the effect Gates would've had in mind.

        • I have a feeling that this was a baseless threat - if he tried to pull off something like that, the resultant outcry would have caused Congress to pass an exception to the copyright laws, just for Microsoft software.

          While such a law could be passed it would most likely would be repealed as a bill of attainder [wikipedia.org], a legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

          IMO Gates would really have to be at the end of his rope to do something like this to the end user. It is

    • Because the proprietary software might meet more of those requirements this year, but widespread adoption of the open solution might meet more of those requirements next year and cost you less and keep you clear of vendor lockin.

      Its important to understand the simple concept that time is always moving forward. It never stops to rest. If we ignore that fact and that open software has been improving at a rate some say is faster than proprietary we might spend extra money on proprietary hardware and softwa
    • I am not sure to get your point. They put "being open-source" at the top of their priority list, that's all.
      1. Why are we always breaking software into open and proprietary? Why can't people just create a prioritized list of requirements and then use it to pick the software that fits the best for them?

      The point of these government and corporate reviews isn't to make an artificial split open vs. proprietary, it's to legitimize the *open source* software for use at all.

      I've had many conversations where people were against open source for reasons that aren't true.

      Short story, I was told by one executive that 'S

  • Linux efficiency (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:09AM (#10652454)
    I never realised linux had reached a level of maturity that would mean that it is inefficient enough for the gov to even consider using it.

  • Surely the most important thing is...... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cheezemonkhai ( 638797 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:26AM (#10652591) Homepage
    Can the OSS movement afford the backhanders needed to get governments to use their software ;)

  • In other news .. (Score:4, Funny)

    by RealProgrammer ( 723725 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:36AM (#10652685) Homepage Journal
    World's Fastest Computer Runs Linux

    UK Government Recognizes Independence of American Colonies

    Windows Considered Harmful

    Stewart Recommends Telling Truth To Investigators

    Experts Warn Not To Cross Street Without Looking
    - film at 11

  • Interesting file formats... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by resiak ( 583703 ) <willNO@SPAMwillthompson.co.uk> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:37AM (#10652695)

    So the final results [ogc.gov.uk] page offers some mild amusement when looking at the file types on offer. In June 2002, the "Open Source Software Policy Document" was released in RTF, PDF, HTML and ... Word DOC. September 2002's "Guidance on implementing OSS" was only released in PDF. Then, a glimmer of hope! The Qinetiq (what a stupid name...) report was released in PDF, RTF and none other than OOo SXW! There may be hope yet... but no, the final report that this article is about was released in RTF, PDF, HTML and DOC.

    The question is: why bother releasing in .DOC when there's an RTF right above it? Hmm...

    • The question is: why bother releasing in .DOC when there's an RTF right above it? Hmm..

      The RTF doesn't contain the metadata. We can't tell who edited it and for how long, and there won't be any embarassing edits to display in the revision history. Obviously they have to release the .DOC file as well, otherwise we wouldn't be getting our money's worth. :)
    • If they are really smart, the document content will be in XML, and the different output formats will be generated using xslt and/or CSS.

      No fuss, no muss, and no nasty edit-trail to clean up. ;)
    • 'The question is: why bother releasing in .DOC when there's an RTF right above it? Hmm...' As a service to journalists. They want this news to be printed after all.
  • Looking at the final report's Executive Summary and Background sections [ogc.gov.uk], I noted that although the UK Government were sniffy about desktop and business systems, they said:

    "no significant obstacles were noted for the adoption of Open Source in infrastructure developments"
    Looks like a significant crack in the eGov door for Linux.

    /joelethan

  • At last. (Score:3, Funny)

    by MartinG ( 52587 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:41AM (#10652728) Homepage Journal
    I think I will start using linux now. I am very reassured by this.

    The UK govermnent has always been second to none in their execution and understanding of IT projects. They are get things right first time and are consistently under budget and finish early.

    I trust nobody more to speak with authority on issues like this.

    BWAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

    The UK GOVERNMENT!! says LINUX IS VIABLE!!!! HAHAHA!!!!

    • You've missed the point. This is an instruction from top-level government to lower-level government departments that they ought to be considering open source solutions. It's an internal document. You don't have to trust it; the other government departments that it was written for do.
      • Well, I perhaps deliberately missed the point in an attempt at humour. I have failed it seems. I will now go back to normal.

  • Vatican reports: "Gravity is 'plausible'" (Score:5, Funny)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:42AM (#10652744) Homepage Journal
    In a stunning admission that post Ptolemaic science may in fact be an acceptable realm of study, the Vatican announced today that it is entirely plausible that gravity in fact, exists. This reverses nearly 2000 years of Christian theology which until now had answered such questions with "God says, case closed, now go home and make more Catholics."

  • It's about time. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by swordfish666 ( 518548 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:45AM (#10652770)
    Three years ago (2001), while I was working in London at a Medical Software Development firm, I recomend that the company move from ColdFusion to J2EE for scaleability and I wanted to work with Java. But the company, on Micro$ofts urging, went to .NET. Then a year later(2002) after attending LinuxExpo in London, I presented to the IT Director a plan to build a desktop OS for the National Health Services using Linux. But the Brits do not like chage and they really do not like Americans recomending change. Also around that time Sun approchad the same Director and showed him their first run at linux the SunLinuxOS. But the business reality was "We are an Microsoft shop and we cannot afford to change direction." Which was fair enough.

    Now just a few weeks ago there was a story about how Sun scored a deal with the NHS for $9 Billion dollars or 5 Billion (GBP).

    Respond if you want but I am jsut trying to vaildate my self worth now that I am back in the
    US and unemployed.

    • The British Public Sector is Suicidal (Score:5, Insightful)

      by turgid ( 580780 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @09:11AM (#10653029) Journal
      That's just British state-controlled business for you. I used to work for BNFL Magnox Generation. They were just as resistant to change and just as backward looking. They did a complete company-wide roll-out to NT4 on all the servers and PCs just as Microsoft was withdrawing support for it. Despite my deputations and protestations and business cases for using UNIX, Linux, Open Source etc. I was ignored or given a patronising pat on the head and labelled a lunatic. Now I have a much better paid job outside of the Public Sector and I never have to touch a Winows box ever.

      Rumour has it they're now considering alternatives to help get M$ to lower prices.

      The British Public Sector goes out of its way to procure the most expensive, unreliable, unwieldy, complicated and unsuitable solutions to its problems. It's hard to explain. It's kind of a mind-set that it has. It's pointy-hairedness taken to the extreme.

      I could go on, but I'm just making myself depressed. It's my tax money too...

  • Viable indeed (Score:3, Funny)

    by cdavies ( 769941 ) on Thursday October 28, 2004 @08:52AM (#10652863) Homepage
    For example, if their websever were using OSS, doubtless I'd be able to RTFA rather than getting 500 internal server error.
  • Oh! ... we're talking about linux are we

    ... never mind then.

  • will be able to use the money that they save by deploying Linux to purchase more CCTV cameras, or maybe on a PR campaign to convince everyone that Blind Man Blunkett's ID cards are a good idea!

    Here in America of course adoption of Linux will allow the US government to spend more money on covering the breasts of statues, so as not to offend John Ashcroft, and they'll be able to give more money to Halliburton. Wheeeee!

  • From TFA: a highly zoomed-in picture of Tux followed by "It may look cute, but Linux is bent on global domination"

    :)

  • moral argument for open source in government (Score:4, Interesting)

    by uncadonna ( 85026 ) <mtobisNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Thursday October 28, 2004 @11:03AM (#10654498) Homepage Journal
    I'm disappointed with this discussion so far. I'm actively looking for moral arguments for open source software in government.

    This isn't purely an academic exercise. I have an appointment with the progressive mayor of a medium sized city to show off a LAMP project that I'm doing for the city bureaucracy. This city administration is stuck with a nightmarish tangle of legacy proprietary software garbage and yet the city is home to one of the world's leading CS departments and is a hotbed of OSS. It's absurd.

    Anyway, even if that weren't the case there's a case to be made that governments should not merely tolerate OSS but demand it. This mayor and council would be open to such arguments if they were appropriately presented.

    I'm sure it's been made somewhere by someone besides me, but Google has not been kind to me so far.

    I'd appreciate any discussion or links on this topic. Resolved: a democratic government, in service to its constituency, should whenever possible refrain from building its public services around proprietary software built upon trade secrets.

    Thanks in advance.

  • To: Microsoft
    Re: Linux

    "Nothing else in the world ...
    not all the armies ... is so
    powerful as an idea whose time
    has come."

    -- Victor Hugo

Slashdot Top Deals

"I'm a mean green mother from outer space" -- Audrey II, The Little Shop of Horrors

Close