Only linux to be used in EU public services! an utopian idea?

[Martiini]

[Last Edit]
I realise now .. it is about enforcing open standards not what software or OS is being used
[Last Edit end]

Implementing standardised computer systems in EU may rise taxes and Im not advocating taxing EU citizens for software ..

Something I would want to know and see some elaboration on ...
Theoretically, ... is it possible that a unified GPL OS (say Ubuntu for example) would be used on ALL computer systems in European Union establishments i.e. ... governments, libraries, police stations, national health service establishments etc. ??

.. whenever I go to dentist, library, government agency .. they all seem to have windows on their computers.
Few weeks ago when I visited the dentist I noticed they had windows software for x-ray photos. Our local library use windows software as well.

Im talking mainly politics which is the most boring subject on earth.
I realise a standardized infrastructure similar to communist Soviet Union does not work in human societies.

Does the inability to provide a working standardized system and implementing software produced by USA corporation within EU show that the idea of standards within European Union does not work.
What is interesting to me is that some huge organisations already use linux http://www.aaxnet.com/design/linux2.html ...
and ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Handset_Alliance has produced Android which is developed mainly by Google who also run Ubuntu linux and develop their own infrastructure based on GPL software.

[rogue_0111]

I have to agree.

At my job I use a network analyzer and sadly it runs Windowz 2000.

[szymon_g]

.. whenever I go to dentist, library, government agency .. they all seem to have windows on their computers.

oh, yeah. those fools don't know what they need, they should ask people from ubuntuforum!
but more seriously: maybe you should let people use what they want? i personally see no problem with people using windows on their computers- mostly because that many of important, usefull apps work only on windows.

[lukeiamyourfather]

many of important, usefull apps work only on windows.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. Most specialized software for libraries, medical equipment, and the like are developed for Windows. If there was a free alternative or at least a Linux version of those softwares then using Linux for an entire country infrastructure is entirely possible. Though unlikely because there probably won't be a Linux version of those specialized applications for various reasons. Cheers!

[Techsnap]

Oh Wow, it's really on the top of their priorities to do this you know. Come on, there's nothing wrong with the current system, if there was they wouldn't use it. Going to cost a lot of money to do that anyway.

[Queue29]

Well the Munich - Linux (http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/timeline-of-failure.html) conversion went over so well I don't see why not..

[MasterNetra]

Yea why not let them use windows? Who needs to save money and be more secure.

[Techsnap]

They'll be saving money by usin Windows actually. Training staff & replacing a whole software infrastructure aint cheap.

[phrostbyte]

A better question, is why does the EU develop their own OS (or contribute to Linux)? Relying on the OS of a foreign power is like giving the keys to all your critical infrastructure. USA is clearly using Windows in many govt establishments. But if Windows was closed source by an EU or Chinese company I don't think the would USA govt use it. Especially not in the DoD.

[audiomick]

They'll be saving money by usin Windows actually. Training staff & replacing a whole software infrastructure aint cheap.

And knowing how to use windows is a god-given inborn skill.

[Techsnap]

Windows is already in place and most people in those professions would be trained to use it.

[phrostbyte]

Windows is already in place and most people in those professions would be trained to use it.

The thing is, what if the USA and a EU country goes to war (it happened in the past!)?

I'm sure the USA would use some kind of functionality (eg: the autoupdate), to knock the enemy computer infrastructure down with some kind of malware. Having domestic control of the software which runs a lot of the tech in the world is a huge military advantage! I'm surprised the EU allows itself to have such a military disadvantage with the USA. I guess they are too trusting? :)

[lukeiamyourfather]

The thing is, what if the USA and a EU country goes to war (it happened in the past!)?

I'm sure the USA would use some kind of functionality (eg: the autoupdate), to knock the enemy computer infrastructure down with some kind of malware. Having domestic control of the software which runs a lot of the tech in the world is a huge military advantage! I'm surprised the EU allows itself to have such a military disadvantage with the USA. I guess they are too trusting? :)

That's being a little melodramatic don't you think? Besides, its Microsoft that makes Windows not the government and armed forces.

[phrostbyte]

That's being a little melodramatic don't you think? Besides, its Microsoft that makes Windows not the government and armed forces.

When a country goes to total war, domestic corporations are just another branch of the war effort! The fact that Microsoft makes Windows is irrelevant, it might as well be a DoD product. :D

A war with EU is probably unlikely right now, even far fetched. But impossible. No! War is not always predictable. We are talking about years and years of diplomacy following WWII. Many people thought that would work. You look back it might be obvious that war was brewing, but not so looking forward. A responsible military always plans for the worst case scenario. I wouldn't be surprised if there is detailed plans in the US DoD for how to conduct a war with every single country in the world, even our current allies. Just in case.

If such a hypothetical war with EU or an EU country would occur, Windows gives USA the so called "digital advantage", IMO. In today's world, this is can be a serious advantage. With a lot of computer infrastructure disabled, many countries couldn't function. The enemy country might have to block itself from the Internet completely, or rapidly switch to a different OS.

Again this IS far fetched. We live in a global economy that didn't exist in the 1940s and that is maintain a peace via dependence that probably wouldn't exist otherwise. But we aren't a one world government yet and IMO a responsible government shouldn't utilize extensive foreign technology.

[Martiini]

When a country goes to total war ...

phrostbyte, sir, You sound like one of those fanatics who flew into WTC towers ... just a pun

[gnomeuser]

The push should not be for a specific license or a specific OS.

The major problem is interaction, all these little sections of society such as doctors and hospitals have evolved their own IT infrastructure over time. There isn't any open standards for things like patient journals being supported and these sections have become data silos often guarded by software written by companies that no longer exist and/or in formats that aren't documented. As you don't have the source code it is thus even harder to figure out how to correctly transition to allow more natural interaction.

My mother is a nurse with the biggest hospital in town and she reports that she has to login 3 times to 3 different systems running on the same computer just to get the information on which patient requires what care. This system is thus so time consuming and impractical that due to ever increasing demands for efficiency the nurses tend to forgo the system when they can, thus journals aren't updated in a timely manner and patients potentially receive inferior care.

Clearly we could leverage IT to make this process better but we do not yet have the ability to do so, mainly I believe because the systems aren't designed for this, can't be changed to support it and the data is locked in.

My proposal for a tactic would be that all public spending on IT projects outside of the regular requirements such as support for accessibility be supplemented with demands that projects be implemented with rigorously documented open formats and that as publicly funded work it be made available for the public under something like the MS-PL (Microsoft Permissive License - roughly an MIT/X11 license with a patent grant). All code should be released to a non-profit which should be taxed with the job of hosting the code and documentation as well as any future development and discussion. This should probably also be the job of this non-profit to certify and sheppard standards.

This would allow projects to live on even after the maker of the software goes away for whatever reason. It allows everyone to see and use the code without unfairly taxing them to open their code. It allows the government to shop around for support, whoever is willing to support the code can make an offer. The use of open standards means that no citizen is left without the option to use the services of government. Documents e.g. will be able to be opened in any compatible application on any system.

The requirement to release code would ensure that while a company might develop for a specific platform such as ix86 Windows we can with a bit of investment port it to other platforms.

[Martiini]

The use of open standards means that no citizen is left without the option to use the services of government. Documents e.g. will be able to be opened in any compatible application on any system.

? so .. for example to force open document formats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_Format_Alliance


The requirement to release code would ensure that while a company might develop for a specific platform such as ix86 Windows we can with a bit of investment port it to other platforms.
GPL software like Google Chrome, MySQL, Open-Xchange

[Zlatan]

have you ever heard of NATO, mate?


When a country goes to total war, domestic corporations are just another branch of the war effort! The fact that Microsoft makes Windows is irrelevant, it might as well be a DoD product. :D

A war with EU is probably unlikely right now, even far fetched. But impossible. No! War is not always predictable. We are talking about years and years of diplomacy following WWII. Many people thought that would work. You look back it might be obvious that war was brewing, but not so looking forward. A responsible military always plans for the worst case scenario. I wouldn't be surprised if there is detailed plans in the US DoD for how to conduct a war with every single country in the world, even our current allies. Just in case.

If such a hypothetical war with EU or an EU country would occur, Windows gives USA the so called "digital advantage", IMO. In today's world, this is can be a serious advantage. With a lot of computer infrastructure disabled, many countries couldn't function. The enemy country might have to block itself from the Internet completely, or rapidly switch to a different OS.

Again this IS far fetched. We live in a global economy that didn't exist in the 1940s and that is maintain a peace via dependence that probably wouldn't exist otherwise. But we aren't a one world government yet and IMO a responsible government shouldn't utilize extensive foreign technology.

[SuperSonic4]

A nice, but impractical idea. The timing is right though, there is a global recession and XP is out of date. Training costs are largely capital cost

[sdowney717]

Too many people want windows on their PC. They push back when forced to switch. You cant force users to switch.


January, 2009: End of department-wide migrations. Due to pushback from users unhappy with the LiMux Linux transition, the project manager announces on his blog that beginning during 2008 they stopped forcing entire departments to change at once. Instead they set up "development nucleuses" in each deparment

http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/timeline-of-failure.html

Someday, Linux will be ready for ordinary users to use on their desktop, but that day has not arrived.


Thursday, January 8, 2009
All We Need To Succeed Is A Custom Linux Distro

Why is it that everyone who dreams the dream of Linux on the desktop decides that the way to success is to create yet another custom distro? You would think that either Red Hat, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Debian, Suse, Turbolinux, Slackware, or Linspire would be good enough to do the job. Instead, it apparent that these are inadequate so if someone is going to implement a migration to desktop Linux they must create a new, customized, distribution:

Munich has "LiMux", which only good enough, after spending millions of euros over half a decade, to replace Windows on 10% of their employees' desktops.

The OLPC project had "Sugar Linux", until yesterday. They have decided it will be easier and cheaper to just use Windows, like everyone else.

Sun tried and failed, back in the day.

HP is rumored to be working on a custom distro, now. God only knows why.

Someday, Linux will be ready for ordinary users to use on their desktop, but that day has not arrived.

http://limuxwatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/all-we-need-to-succeed-is-custom-linux.html

[SuperSonic4]

Too many people want windows on their PC. They push back when forced to switch. You cant force users to switch.

You can in the corporate environment.

Boss: We'll be using linux from now on
Employee: I won't use linux
Boss: Here's your P45

[sdowney717]

You can in the corporate environment.

That is just way to easy to say. Follow the story of the German Linux and you see what happens. This is a long long process.

[whiskeylover]

You can in the corporate environment.

Boss: We'll be using linux from now on
Employee: I won't use linux
Boss: Here's your P45

You mean the Boss suddenly wakes up one morning and decides he wants Linux on all the corporate computers?

I bet he gets fired by the board of directors the next day.

[ibuclaw]

They'll be saving money by usin Windows actually. Training staff & replacing a whole software infrastructure aint cheap.

Not cheap, yes. But it is cheaper to switch an infrastructure from XP to Linux, compared to switching XP to Vista or 7. Unlike what Windows were advertising a while back. (Or so I have heard from several news sources that were complaining about the FUD).

[audiomick]

Not cheap, yes. But it is cheaper to switch an infrastructure from XP to Linux, compared to switching XP to Vista or 7. Unlike what Windows were advertising a while back. (Or so I have heard from several news sources that were complaining about the FUD).

I am prepared to believe that.

I find that the argumentation about a theoretical war, whilst extreme and although such a war is extermely unlikely, still has a certain validity. On a vaguely related topic: I remember reading that when the EU started to develope it's own alternative to GPS, there was massive resistance from the US. If NATO is so unburstable, where is the problem? I can also recall reading about a law in the US that prohibits the export of software to a country that is considered unfriendly. Anyway, I don't want to make too much of an issue of that; it is just one of many factors.

Quite apart from any military considerations, I just don't think it is wise that so much of the world is more or less dependant on the well being and competence of one company.

What also occurs to me is that public institutions are spending public, i.e. taxpayer's money. Why should the be paying for an OS when there is one that is already common property?

[gnomeuser]

? so .. for example to force open document formats http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument_Format_Alliance


My world, including the example given, extends well beyond Office formats. Even given that you link to a biased organization that isn't involved in managing or developing open formats, instead you link to a biased lobbying organization.

Regardless the EU and every country in it for this to work would need to have some official place to collaborate on and around this formats, e.g. for electronic patient journal.



GPL software like Google Chrome, MySQL, Open-Xchange

We were talking about public services, this means software especially designed and implemented under contract with a government entity. Such as hospital journal systems, systems for social workers (who need to interact with critical citizen data), nationwide public transport planning and booking and the likes.

Why are you bringing irrelevant applications and lobbying entities into this debate?

[Martiini]

We were talking about public services, this means software especially designed and implemented under contract with a government entity.

Why are you bringing irrelevant applications and lobbying entities into this debate?

What I don't understand is why that "government entity" has chosen to use software produced by USA corporations (Microsoft, Google etc)
EU has its own space program, GPS systems etc , yet it seems to fail in implementing an OPEN unified software environment and development ecosystems for public services ...
I have no idea how EU, software producers et.al work ... I only use Ubuntu on my laptop.
(need to go out and do some shopping now .. be back later)

[Dr. C]

When a country goes to total war, domestic corporations are just another branch of the war effort! The fact that Microsoft makes Windows is irrelevant, it might as well be a DoD product. :D

A war with EU is probably unlikely right now, even far fetched. But impossible. No! War is not always predictable. We are talking about years and years of diplomacy following WWII. Many people thought that would work. You look back it might be obvious that war was brewing, but not so looking forward. A responsible military always plans for the worst case scenario. I wouldn't be surprised if there is detailed plans in the US DoD for how to conduct a war with every single country in the world, even our current allies. Just in case.

If such a hypothetical war with EU or an EU country would occur, Windows gives USA the so called "digital advantage", IMO. In today's world, this is can be a serious advantage. With a lot of computer infrastructure disabled, many countries couldn't function. The enemy country might have to block itself from the Internet completely, or rapidly switch to a different OS.

Again this IS far fetched. We live in a global economy that didn't exist in the 1940s and that is maintain a peace via dependence that probably wouldn't exist otherwise. But we aren't a one world government yet and IMO a responsible government shouldn't utilize extensive foreign technology.

The key here is that a responsible government shouldn't utilize foreign technology that remains under the control of a foreign power. Take for example the case of Cuba. In 1959 almost all the vehicles in Cuba were made in the United States. After the 1959 Cuban revolution the US cut off the supply of spare parts, but that did not prevent the Cubans from continuing to operate and maintain these vehicles. In fact a significant proportion are still running today. It did however create a nation of expert mechanics. Now fast forward 50 years and consider the same situation today. All the US government would have do is instruct GM to shut off all the vehicles in Cuba using the On-Star system. The key difference here is that the 1959 Chevy in Cuba was under the control of the Cuban government but the 2009 Chevy that is exported from the US remains under the control of GM and consequently the US government.

In the case of Microsoft Windows the issue is not that the software is developed by a US corporation, but rather that Microsoft retains control of the software via its built in DRM. Modern versions of Windows have a built in kill switch (product activation, validation, etc.). Again as in the scenario above. All the US government would have to do in this case is instruct Microsoft to declare all versions of Windows in the target country "non genuine". The consequences of "non genuine" can be for example a black screen with "reduced functionality" as was the case for early versions of Windows Vista.

[Icehuck]

Not cheap, yes. But it is cheaper to switch an infrastructure from XP to Linux, compared to switching XP to Vista or 7. Unlike what Windows were advertising a while back. (Or so I have heard from several news sources that were complaining about the FUD).

Switching to Vista or 7 is much cheaper than going to Linux. I don't have to pay for development to happen on a new platform. I don't have to implement new hardware to help manage a change. I don't have to pay to have employees trained. I don't have to hire consultants to help ensure we get what we need.

When you have over 1000 employees this stuff gets expensive.

[Dr. C]

Switching to Vista or 7 is much cheaper than going to Linux. I don't have to pay for development to happen on a new platform. I don't have to implement new hardware to help manage a change. I don't have to pay to have employees trained. I don't have to hire consultants to help ensure we get what we need.

When you have over 1000 employees this stuff gets expensive.

Really? No new hardware to move from XP to Vista? GNU/Linux runs fine on most XP hardware in businesses, but Vista. That is another matter.

[Icehuck]

Really? No new hardware to move from XP to Vista? GNU/Linux runs fine on most XP hardware in businesses, but Vista. That is another matter.

Buying/leasing desktops is much cheaper. Also, when warranties expire, most companies cycle their desktop hardware. It doesn't matter if I'm running linux, my hardware is going to get replaced. Machines without a warranty are expensive to repair, and machines break down all the time.

[Ylon]

Bizarre.. just sometime ago I'd post the same idea in the EU forums:
http://forums.ec.europa.eu/debateeurope/viewtopic.php?f=98&t=18757


...but it may sound a bit... "politic", and I don't think is allowed in these forums deal with it.

anyway; http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/oso

[Paqman]

Switching to Vista or 7 is much cheaper than going to Linux. I don't have to pay for development to happen on a new platform. I don't have to implement new hardware to help manage a change. I don't have to pay to have employees trained. I don't have to hire consultants to help ensure we get what we need.

When you have over 1000 employees this stuff gets expensive.

Hmm. I suspect that in reality it depends on a lot of factors. The apps required will make a massive difference, for example. I would image the retraining cost of converting from an OpenOffice+XP to OpenOffice+Ubuntu would be lower than MSOffice+XP to OpenOffice+XP, for example.

I think it's a bit difficult to make any sweeping generalisations about the costs of migrating OSes. Every business will be different.

[KiwiNZ]

To hamstring the public service into a compulsory method is a failed doctrine. The EU should NOT do this. Allow each organisation find the best solution that best meets their needs.

If the EU wants to go back in time then go ahead implement this crazy idea.

[lukeiamyourfather]

While on the subject of hospitals and their software being a roadblock, check this out.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=5685&tag=wrapper;col1
http://openmrs.org/wiki/OpenMRS

Its obviously not a plug and play replacement but its really inspiring that people are actually working on alternatives. Cheers!

[Dr. C]

To hamstring the public service into a compulsory method is a failed doctrine. The EU should NOT do this. Allow each organisation find the best solution that best meets their needs.

If the EU wants to go back in time then go ahead implement this crazy idea.

I agree mandating GNU/Linux in government software procurement is not the solution, but mandating a truly competitive bidding process that is not skewed towards the products of a particular company is.

When it comes to migrating enterprises to FLOSS a gradual approach can be the most cost effective. For example migrating applications to FLOSS / Server based alternatives that are cross platform first. The last thing you migrate is the OS not the first. A good example of the right way to do this is http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/open-source-leads-gendarme-arrest-spending. In this case by the time of the migration to Ubuntu all that left that was Windows specific, was games and icons.


In 2007 the Gendarmerie decided to replace even the desktop operating system. Guimard: "Moving from Microsoft XP to Vista would not have brought us many advantages and Microsoft said it would require training of users. Moving from XP to Ubuntu, however, proved very easy. The two biggest differences are the icons and the games. Games are not our priority."

http://www.osor.eu/news/fr-gendarmerie-saves-millions-with-open-desktop-and-web-applications

[ibuclaw]

http://www.osor.eu/news/fr-gendarmerie-saves-millions-with-open-desktop-and-web-applications
Just to point out another quote from the site.


According to Guimard the move to open source has also helped to reduce maintenance costs. Keeping GNU/Linux desktops up to date is much easier, he says. "Previously, one of us would be travelling all year just to install a new version of some anti virus application on the desktops in the Gendarmerie's outposts on the islands in French Polynesia. A similar operation now is finished within two weeks and does not require travelling."


That is not quite so true.

The company I work for has a package manager for Windows in place (albeit, a dirty vb script hack), that gets applied to some 250,000 workstations we support. This means that we don't need to go travelling. ;)

But back to the world of Linux, it certainly is more efficient to remove applications in Linux. :)