Governments and open source vs proprietary software

**Jeff the Brit** · May 6th, 2002, 08:54 AM

I've just seen <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25157.html" target="_blank">this </a> letter from a Peruvian congressman quoted on The Register. It's long, but perhaps the clearest and most eloquent rebuttal of Microsoft's position on open source vs proprietary that I've read to date. I'd like to see the British government taking a similar view, as they appear to be in bed with Microsoft.

Current proposals for a unified gateway to Brit government info/services look as though Bill's going to get the gig and woe betide anybody who tries to access said info/services through anything other than (recent) Microsoft software. <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/19239.html" target="_blank">This</a> was the postion last year. I've just checked the current position on other browsers <a href="http://www.gateway.gov.uk/" target="_blank">here</a> and Mac users particularly have some limitations, although the position for Windows users is better now than when this was written last year. Netscape users seem to be held in low regard even now.

With our government's record on IT projects (see <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/13162.html" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/17934.html" target="_blank">here</a> ) , especially combined with a helping hand from the MS bug producers, I'm not optimistic about getting a simple and reliable solution this side of the next millennium.

I think my Member of Parliament may be getting an email from me real soon. Fortunately he's a scientist and not a (insert cuss word of choice) lawyer, in addition to being one of the few human beings wandering the corridors of power in this country. Any chance of other UK Windrivers people giving their MP a nudge?

What do Windrivers people think of their own government's position on open source/proprietary software?

**Draggar** · May 6th, 2002, 08:59 AM

Depends on who's in charge here.

If Reagan was, and had his congress, then the Laizze Faire (sp?) a.k.a. Reganomics would still be around.
Basicly a hands off to businesses.

Right now, the US Justice Dept is trying to file a monopoly suit against MS, forcing them to split into 2 corperations, one for the OSs, the other for Office suits (what would that do???).

Bill Gates was even fined $1M a day. Guess he'll be bankrupt in about 5,000,000 years.

**MacGyver** · May 6th, 2002, 11:00 AM

AFAIC, the PC industry today would not have been possible without everything that Microsoft has done. Sure, some may argue they're a huge powerful corporation, but so what? They're huge because they were able to pioneer the foundation for the entire PC industry, and anybody else who ever had a chance to do something similar didn't cut it.

In a country where capitalism is the idol, why the government is trying to cut down an entity that is the prime example of it is IMHO a complete waste of it's citizen's time and money. And for what?

**Deity** · May 6th, 2002, 11:10 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by MacGyver:
AFAIC, the PC industry today would not have been possible without everything that Microsoft has done. Sure, some may argue they're a huge powerful corporation, but so what? They're huge because they were able to pioneer the foundation for the entire PC industry, and anybody else who ever had a chance to do something similar didn't cut it.

In a country where capitalism is the idol, why the government is trying to cut down an entity that is the prime example of it is IMHO a complete waste of it's citizen's time and money. And for what?<hr /></blockquote>My thoughts exactly.

**silencio** · May 6th, 2002, 11:37 AM

Without reading the above arguments (because I'm eating lunch and I've got a stack of work) I an offer this. Microsoft uses it's power with reckless abandon when it comes to competitive practices. The deliberately write new code that will make other applications break (see winamp on XP) when they make the software compatible to begin with. They make it almost impossible to remove messenger from XP. They built a browser into the OS when they didn't need to. They want to control 100% of your computing experience.

That is not good for the consumer. I personally think that if MS is going to control all the applications on your machine (as well as OS functions) then they should have to port the app side to another platform (like linux or MAC if MAC would open up their hardware).

If they won't do that they should have to make a modular version of Windows. They bitch about how that would impare them but it's 100% do-able and maybe if they spent a little time porting to other platforms they'd lay off on the mandatory upgrades for awhile. That's another beef.

I'm all for people making money but without competition your money gets sucked out like blood and you get very little in return.

I'd love to know the true profit margin on their software.

**Jeff the Brit** · May 6th, 2002, 11:48 AM

My hat's off to Bill for doing a lot to make computing accessible to the masses. I don't have any problem with Microsoft being successful. The bit I do have a problem with is the tendency of ALL organisations that dominate their patch to try to make it impossible for anybody to displace them. They don't always succeed, look at the way Lotus or IBM fell from dominance in the PC biz, that's just the free market doing its thing.
What I worry about is an organisation that's big enough to have a substantial influence on government using that influence to get their pals in office to write legislation to suit them e.g RIAA and DMCA.
What would happen if Ford or GM were to attempt to make you buy only their gas? As it is, you can stick any gas in your car and it runs. The printer manufacturers too are doing their best to put 3rd party ink makers out of the game. My take on that is that I wish the 3rd party ink makers would produce a decent product, one that didn't knacker your printer.

I don't have any argument with free markets. The natural goal for any business is to aim for success and beat the competition. Being a market leader and grinding the competition so far into the dust, especially if you can make it illegal for anybody else to compete, however, is going too far in my humble opinion. Succeed by being the best, not by nobbling the other runners in the race!

**Radical Dreamer** · May 6th, 2002, 01:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iateyourcat:
Without reading the above arguments (because I'm eating lunch and I've got a stack of work) I an offer this. Microsoft uses it's power with reckless abandon when it comes to competitive practices. The deliberately write new code that will make other applications break (see winamp on XP)
<hr /></blockquote> Winamp sucks[ <blockquote>quote:<hr />when they make the software compatible to begin with. They make it almost impossible to remove messenger from XP<hr /></blockquote> Its a 2mb porgram, just disable it starting and be done with it <blockquote>quote:<hr />. They built a browser into the OS when they didn't need to<hr /></blockquote>[qb] If they would not build a browser into the OS then how would you download one? <blockquote>quote:<hr />[qb]. They want to control 100% of your computing experience.

That is not good for the consumer. I personally think that if MS is going to control all the applications on your machine (as well as OS functions) then they should have to port the app side to another platform (like linux or MAC if MAC would open up their hardware).

If they won't do that they should have to make a modular version of Windows. They bitch about how that would impare them but it's 100% do-able and maybe if they spent a little time porting to other platforms they'd lay off on the mandatory upgrades for awhile. That's another beef.

I'm all for people making money but without competition your money gets sucked out like blood and you get very little in return.

I'd love to know the true profit margin on their software.<hr /></blockquote>I know its the "cool" thing to hate microsoft but without them we would still be in the dark ages of computing. Yes they do some anti competitive things from now and then but who doesnt? Microsoft just gets hit with complaints because they are the biggest player out there

**silencio** · May 6th, 2002, 01:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Winamp Sucks[<hr /></blockquote>Winamp Sucks? My God! Blasphemy!!!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It's a 2mb porgram, just disable it starting and be done with it<hr /></blockquote>That doesn't work on XP. Unless you manually remove it from the machine and registry. How many end users can do that?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If they would not build a browser into the OS how would you download one?<hr /></blockquote>You wouldn't need to. Your machine would be built with the one that the manufacturer wanted on the machine. If you wanted to change browsers that would be your option.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I know its the "cool" thing to hate microsoft but without them we would still be in the dark ages of computing. Yes they do some anti competitive things from now and then but who doesnt? Microsoft just gets hit with complaints because they are the biggest player out there<hr /></blockquote>I don't hate microsoft. I make a whole lot of money because of microsoft. It's not about jumping on a bandwagon and saying "ooo, big company bad." It's about a capitalist nation based on competition making a decision not to allow a monopoly. It's the same issue that kept NBC from owning a television manufacturing company. It's the same issue that established government price caps on utilities such as phone and power. It's the issue that maintains a fair price for a product the economy needs to survive.

...and saying that "everybody does it" when it comes to illegal and anti competitive practices is like saying everybody cheats on their taxes, everybody cheats on their SATs everybody cheats on their wife, everybody shoplifts, everybody's a no good sinning fool.

**Jeff the Brit** · May 6th, 2002, 05:18 PM

Microsoft aren't the only sinners in the competition stakes. To be without effective competition makes you fat and lazy. Look at the way AMD keep Intel on their toes. Look at how Ford and GM compete for market share, compared with, say, the Indian car industry, which is STILL making a mid 1950's British design and selling it because import controls make it hard to buy anything else.
Look at how, for example British Telecom, with the vast majority of Britain's phone lines, have dragged their feet on broadband, trying to milk their lucrative ISDN business for all it's worth. Dual channel 128k ISDN at 1200 pounds/year versus ADSL 512k at 360 pounds/year? No wonder they're not pushing ADSL too hard, not to mention the money they make from dial-up customers.
Among their less than ethical practices is making it unnecessarily hard for competing ISPs to sell ADSL to their customers. BT won't let an ISP's engineers install ADSL kit in a phone exchange unless a BT engineer is present, ostensibly to oversee things. There is, of course, a very long waiting list to get a BT engineer to do the overseeing bit. Meanwhile, most of the ADSL lines being installed are for BT's own ISP.
In a nutshell, my point is that you NEED serious competition to keep your edge.

**ilovetheusers** · May 6th, 2002, 07:25 PM

I agree with Mac. M$ is pretty much the major factor in the home/work PC today. If it wasn't for a big monopoly coming along - you would need to know the ins and outs of about a bazillion crappy OS's and not just 1. I sound facetious but I'm not. I remember the days of a handful of OS's and computers, all of which had limitations, proprietary software and the market was a mess. What do I buy, who supports it? PIA. I know competition is good, but in this case things were a pain, at least for end user me who didn't understand jack.

Aw man - imagine helpdesk if you had to support 6 OS's on 3 different platforms all in 1 company who needs to connect to another company and who know what they run? The users ain't gonna tell ya so how are you gonna do your job?

**Mr_Miyagi** · May 7th, 2002, 04:01 AM

everyone goes on about the crappy ms "experience", but what choice is there...?

someone ought to develop something "better" that can "run" all available software (after all its only machine code) and then we'd have some voting power (i.e. people would vote with their $$$$$)

i would love a different o/s but because of the limited software and incompatibility with existing stuff, I am putting up with ms... (its not 2 bad an experience now i'm using 2k).

just my 2c worth.

Thread: Governments and open source vs proprietary software

Thread Tools

Display

Governments and open source vs proprietary software

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions