The UK government wont be using Desktop Linux

[Johnsie]

The guy in charge of IT projects is openly an Apple fanboy:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5gk-Kwh8t73MGQsESrWoD2QRZHffQ?docId=N03141613015070321 97A

He made a brief mention of open source products, but said the main concern was how easy they were to hack. I think he will use some open source software, but probably only things like Firefox. He's going to be pushing for Apple products, because he 'uses them at home' and is 'Steve Jobs best customer'

Not looking good.

[coffeecat]

He made a brief mention of open source products, but said the main concern was how easy they were to hack.

Did we read the same article? I see nothing about open source being easy to hack in your link, but I do see:


Senior civil servant Ian Watmore said he wanted people to switch to the global giant's fierce competitor or use freely-available "open source" software to "dramatically" change the game.and


"I personally would like to see people move off Microsoft products onto open source or use Apple technology."Which is somewhat different from what you are saying.

[Johnsie]

Sorry, I read two different articles. The BBC one was the one that mentioned hackability:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12905303



He insisted the government was committed to using more "open source" software to save cash - but had to balance this with concerns about how easily it could be "hacked".


I think the BBC article is a little biased. The BBC tend to do that sometimes when reporting about tech. It could just be the way the author presented it.

[el_koraco]

sweet bejesus, open source software is dangerous because it can be hacked. he uses apple at home. they should start doing sobriety testing in whitehall, asap.

[coffeecat]

I see what you mean. Mr Watmore could have been exploring various issues, such as the allegation of "hackability" of open-source, and the BBC reporter could have simply put their own gloss on it.

Whatever, despite that fact that Mr Watmore does seem - ahem - overly keen on Apple products, I think it's good to see a senior mandarin asking pertinent questions. And particularly questioning the knee-jerk tendency for departments to buy Microsoft.

We may see good come of this. I remain an optimist. :) After all, I filled in my census return online the other day and I was glad to see the census website runs on Linux (http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov.uk%2F) .

Today the Office for National Statistics website. Tomorrow every desktop in Whitehall. Onward and upward! :p

[Johnsie]

The company I work for uses Ubuntu Server for processing some government jobs, for our internal portal and for our websites. I made sure of that ;-)

Only one of our desktops have Ubuntu though. The main reason being that people would complain if they were forced to chang. The existing Exchange/Outlook setup does the job quite well. We also require some specialised software that is only available for Windows and the standard Royal Mail thermal tray label printers don't have Linux drivers. I guess similar issues also hold up other companies from fully migrating.

[pi3.1415926535...]

Has anyone seen this http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12905303? I findd particularly interesting that in the section about "Open Source", it includes both the stereotype of open source being insecure, and the misconception of the meaning of "hacking".

[themarker0]

Linux is insecure! Didn't you all know that? Thats why everyone uses Macintoshes to host their websites. That's why most major web-scripts ONLY support mac servers. CentOS and Redhat died way back then, we found it was insecure.


Seriously? Yes, Linux realistically is insecure. Why? Because people using it %90 of the time don't do the proper security measures to secure it. The exact same reason windows and mac are insecure. I hate even more when people say Linux is less secure then mac. Everything is insecure,

[overdrank]

Threads merged :)

[alexfish]

Not been of any PP

not sure of the comments that relate to open source and hacking (is hacking a derogatory term for people who can programmer a computer )

However it makes for some interesting reading , although think some of the content is restrained.

Suppose those at the TOP of whatever need to start and learn about how the processor works and what the 0 and 1's mean ( a pretty picture , HA , suppose some people can't decide whether to buy the daily * or what ever turns them on {could be something to do with boredom or lack of what ever they lack } )

then possibly get to grips of how the individual mind works as regards putting things together, IT (suppose IT is the modern day replacement for "it") , as in it was.
As of now there are more people capable as individuals who have the knowledge to program at corporate levels of expectations ( NO GLOSS ) and ( yes programming without the restrictions of ?!!!? blah,,,,) I will cut that bit short

most of this was not born for a reason , certain cultures that repress the mind and the need to invent lends only to one thing.

most people can use a pot of paint costing less than 1$ to produce a poster that has more meaning than a off the peg (licensed $1000 product)

those at the top can also look at how nature and instinct work , ( space {.........................................} for comments)

MM! just noticed the theads been merged

will leave original draft as is

with exception

Seriously? Yes, Linux realistically is insecure. Why? Because people using it %90 of the time don't do the proper security measures to secure it look at
Suppose those at the top

alexfish

[Lucradia]

As said; Linux is insecure; mainly because trojans work on any system, no matter what.

[Quadunit404]

The UK government isn't using Linux because of security concerns?

SHOCKING.

Really, if somebody or something had security concerns regarding something, they naturally wouldn't use it and would opt for something else. Besides, isn't it true that there are some unpatched but old holes in the Linux kernel? I know there are some in Firefox.

[SeijiSensei]

Don't underestimate the power of the meme, "If it's free, how can it be any good?" It's a reasonable question, and a difficult psychological barrier for open-source to cross. The standard answers to that question ("many eyes", etc.) usually don't carry the same weight as statements from prestigious corporate entities who presumably stand behind their products. I'm not assuming any back-room shenanigans here, either. It's just "common sense" at work.

Of course, the licensing agreements between those large entities and their trusting clients or potential clients specifically disclaim any responsibility for any adverse consequences resulting from the use of their software. Microsoft (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc976720.aspx) provides all its software on an "as is" basis and specifically states that its Java implementation should not be used to run nuclear power plants or manage air traffic.

[Aquix]

I think the BBC article is a little biased. The BBC tend to do that sometimes when reporting about tech. It could just be the way the author presented it.

I think the BBC is the least reliable source for news on the entire internet. When they get an idea into their heads they never stop. :---)

[smellyman]

He insisted the government was committed to using more "open source" software to save cash - but had to balance this with concerns about how easily it could be "hacked".

I don't think he is saying it isn't secure or can be hacked, but the perception of Open source being hacked exists and he would have to overcome that if they went open source.

[alexfish]

Don't underestimate the power of the meme, "If it's free, how can it be any good?" It's a reasonable question, and a difficult psychological barrier for open-source to cross. The standard answers to that question ("many eyes", etc.) usually don't carry the same weight as statements from prestigious corporate entities who presumably stand behind their products. I'm not assuming any back-room shenanigans here, either. It's just "common sense" at work.

Of course, the licensing agreements between those large entities and their trusting clients or potential clients specifically disclaim any responsibility for any adverse consequences resulting from the use of their software. Microsoft (http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc976720.aspx) provides all its software on an "as is" basis and specifically states that its Java implementation should not be used to run nuclear power plants or manage air traffic.
MM! .............end of post ...LOL

To know the difference , they can't afford to get it wrong ( who the heck wants to board a plane on a "as is basis")

ground control to major tom , " help " .

what do you mean "help" don't you know the difference between help and paying for advice ,in advance

cripes , if I pay now , how much will this advice cost.

MM , depends .... how bad situation is ..... (pisst , get the disclaimers ready )

[Paqman]

Don't underestimate the power of the meme, "If it's free, how can it be any good?"

Deploying open source software at that level isn't free, even if there are no licensing costs. Large organisations will want to enter into a business arrangement with a vendor (eg: Red Hat, Novell, Canonical). I'm sure Linux vendors make sure they're priced competitively to proprietary systems, but they aren't giving it away.

[Johnsie]

+1 for aquix


I think the BBC is the least reliable source for news on the entire internet. When they get an idea into their heads they never stop.

Couldn't have said it better myself. It's nice to see I'm not the only one who thinks that :-)

[SeijiSensei]

Deploying open source software at that level isn't free, even if there are no licensing costs. Large organisations will want to enter into a business arrangement with a vendor (eg: Red Hat, Novell, Canonical). I'm sure Linux vendors make sure they're priced competitively to proprietary systems, but they aren't giving it away.

I realize that, but even with support, lots of PHBs, as they're sometimes called, still have trouble wrapping their heads around the concept of software being created and given away by its developers. They often don't see the distinction between open-source projects and "freeware." You and I know that most of the kernel developers work for places like IBM, RedHat, Novell and Canonical, but I bet even most Linux users don't know that.

It's still pretty common to see open-source and Linux as a world full of dangerous hackers, hippies or, worse, Communists. How often have you seen a mainstream media article or program on Linux and open-source? How about ones for iStuff? Windows 7? It's just another version of the old saw, "Nobody got fired for buying IBM Microsoft."

[slackthumbz]

Watshisface isn't a techie, he's an accountant and possibly one of the worst possible candidates for the position. What kind of moron suggests investing in Mac gear as part of an austerity measure?

[Johnsie]

To be fair to apple, the hardware costs are high, but due to a lack of malware it is cheaper to secure (at the moment). When installing a large IT system the hardware cost is only part of the overall cost.

Training - Cheaper for Windows because most people already know it. Training people to use Linux/Apple would cost alot

OS Cost - Cheaper for Linux because it's free

Software Cost = The same for all, because many free apps are multiplatform

Software Maintenance= Arguable. There are less Linux/Apple experts so they can charge more

Hardware = Linux and Windows about the same. XP can run on cheap hardware and so can Linux. Apple is usually more expensive.

Security Costs = Linux could do well here, however it us harder to find Linux security experts than Windows ones. This can put the price up


I just did the costs, because I don't really want to get into a 'which os is better argument'