PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft caught outright lying in Kenya



vexorian
September 17th, 2012, 10:01 PM
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/?articleID=2000066158&story_title=State-warned-on-ditching-copyrighted-software


“We agree with the open standards but not the free and open source software strategy,” said Paul Roy Owino, technology advisor, Microsoft East and Southern Africa. GIVE US MONEY, IT IS STATE'S JOB TO GIVE US MONEY.


The Government stands to lose to hackers, freedom to third party modification coming with Free and Open Source Software it plans to adopt increases chances of Internet attacks,” he said “I do not think the Government has competent expertise to handle the challenges that comes with the free and Open Source Software,” he said.

Less accountability

Owino said through the Free and Open Source Software the Sate might find it hard to hold anyone accountable should its systems be hacked

“Just like other players in the copyrighted software, we are accountable when our software is hacked, the case is different with the non-copyrighted software,” he said. How many lies can you find in two paragraphs? Let us start with how open source stuffs actually ARE copyrighted. And how it is possible to get support for accountability or how there is no clear correlation between using closed source and being more secure.

smellyman
September 18th, 2012, 12:04 AM
How is MS accountable when attacks happen?

Primefalcon
September 18th, 2012, 09:26 AM
This surprises you? Didn't you see the educational slides Microsoft sent to best buy employee's?

forrestcupp
September 18th, 2012, 11:33 AM
Think about it for a minute with an unbiased mind. Security attacks don't have to be packaged and released to a world full of watch dogs; they can be done locally. If you don't have anyone locally that knows how to sift through code every day to make sure nothing has changed, then in that situation, FOSS with exposed code actually could be dangerous.

iponeverything
September 18th, 2012, 12:17 PM
Think about it for a minute with an unbiased mind.

I tried, but it hurts..

Statia
September 18th, 2012, 12:37 PM
If Microsoft was held accountable for every time their software was hacked and would have to pay damages, they would have gone bankrupt years ago.

Mikeb85
September 18th, 2012, 04:21 PM
It's no surprise that MS and Oracle are trying to convince them not to move to open-source, that's their meal ticket.

That being said, there is something to say for software that comes with paid support, whether MS, Oracle, Red Hat, SUSE or Canonical...

Vinton90
September 18th, 2012, 04:29 PM
Think about it for a minute with an unbiased mind. Security attacks don't have to be packaged and released to a world full of watch dogs; they can be done locally. If you don't have anyone locally that knows how to sift through code every day to make sure nothing has changed, then in that situation, FOSS with exposed code actually could be dangerous.

That is quite true, they have the money to pay someone to sift through it all. With open source a lot of the code checking is done by volunteers to make sure it's safe. All it would take is someone being a little more tired then usual and missing the few lines that did damage. Or, if you download a package from an untrusted source with the idea "it's open source, no one wants my data in the open source community" you're bound to get hit. It's true, from what research I've personally done that there are far few instances, and must crashes in the Ubuntu world are due to users playing around.

I don't agree with Microsoft trying to persuade by tilting the truth but then again, they're just trying to make a buck too. I'll talk smack about Microsoft all day but I do realize they employ people who have children to feed. We volunteer.

dericke
September 19th, 2012, 02:15 AM
I don't understand, if lack of accountability is such an issue for major deployments of FOSS, why aren't there more FOSS support companies out there? There's already several players out there proving that you can make money out of something that's "free," so why don't we see more companies providing paid support for open-source? They could be a great potential source of money and man-hours to accelerate development on projects they support, as well.

Mikeb85
September 19th, 2012, 02:23 AM
I don't understand, if lack of accountability is such an issue for major deployments of FOSS, why aren't there more FOSS support companies out there? There's already several players out there proving that you can make money out of something that's "free," so why don't we see more companies providing paid support for open-source? They could be a great potential source of money and man-hours to accelerate development on projects they support, as well.

There are quite a few companies that provide support for Linux. The biggest are IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, SUSE and of course Canonical. A quick Google search turns up a few pages of companies...

forrestcupp
September 19th, 2012, 03:04 AM
I don't understand, if lack of accountability is such an issue for major deployments of FOSS, why aren't there more FOSS support companies out there? There's already several players out there proving that you can make money out of something that's "free," so why don't we see more companies providing paid support for open-source? They could be a great potential source of money and man-hours to accelerate development on projects they support, as well.

Because most people just use free forums and don't pay anyone for support.

KiwiNZ
September 19th, 2012, 03:16 AM
I don't understand, if lack of accountability is such an issue for major deployments of FOSS, why aren't there more FOSS support companies out there? There's already several players out there proving that you can make money out of something that's "free," so why don't we see more companies providing paid support for open-source? They could be a great potential source of money and man-hours to accelerate development on projects they support, as well.

There are many Companies providing professional support for Linux to the Enterprise sector. However this is unlikely to ever be replicated in the consumer sector. Consumers do not like paying for support even for non open source products.

dericke
September 19th, 2012, 03:55 AM
There are many Companies providing professional support for Linux to the Enterprise sector. However this is unlikely to ever be replicated in the consumer sector. Consumers do not like paying for support even for non open source products.
I was referring more to enterprise support for individual programs, like LibreOffice, GIMP, Scribus, etc. Do Linux support vendors support these programs as well? And what about companies that might be committed to Windows, but want to run FOSS within Windows? If there is a perception out there that proprietary software is superior to FOSS because of support or accountability, then there should also be a market for that service.

Say some graphic design firm decides to switch from Illustrator to Inkscape, but wants to keep running Mac OS. After some time using Inkscape, they stumble across some show-stopping bug, which is killing their productivity. Wouldn't it be valuable to them to have someone they could call, who would prioritize the bugs that affect this firm over those that don't?

It sounds like the lack of such support for Inkscape, or any number of other libre programs, is an important component of effective FUD, an obstacle for adoption, and a potential source of professional developers for these projects.

Now, I'm not a developer, and I only have a rough grasp of how FOSS development actually works. So please feel free to enlighten me where I am wrong.

KiwiNZ
September 19th, 2012, 04:04 AM
I was referring more to enterprise support for individual programs, like LibreOffice, GIMP, Scribus, etc. Do Linux support vendors support these programs as well? And what about companies that might be committed to Windows, but want to run FOSS within Windows? If there is a perception out there that proprietary software is superior to FOSS because of support or accountability, then there should also be a market for that service.

Say some graphic design firm decides to switch from Illustrator to Inkscape, but wants to keep running Mac OS. After some time using Inkscape, they stumble across some show-stopping bug, which is killing their productivity. Wouldn't it be valuable to them to have someone they could call, who would prioritize the bugs that affect this firm over those that don't?

It sounds like the lack of such support for Inkscape, or any number of other libre programs, is an important component of effective FUD, an obstacle for adoption, and a potential source of professional developers for these projects.

Now, I'm not a developer, and I only have a rough grasp of how FOSS development actually works. So please feel free to enlighten me where I am wrong.

Its the open source catch 22, Support providers would begin supporting open source products if there were the demand for this service, however Enterprise users are not going to shift to open source if the support is not present, catch 22.

In a project I am currently doing from my initial research it is quite likely that I will implement a cessation of the provision of support for open source products except for that associated with Servers. The cost of having staff for non server related open source support is high and returns too low and not viable.

Mikeb85
September 19th, 2012, 05:11 AM
I was referring more to enterprise support for individual programs, like LibreOffice, GIMP, Scribus, etc. Do Linux support vendors support these programs as well? And what about companies that might be committed to Windows, but want to run FOSS within Windows? If there is a perception out there that proprietary software is superior to FOSS because of support or accountability, then there should also be a market for that service.

Say some graphic design firm decides to switch from Illustrator to Inkscape, but wants to keep running Mac OS. After some time using Inkscape, they stumble across some show-stopping bug, which is killing their productivity. Wouldn't it be valuable to them to have someone they could call, who would prioritize the bugs that affect this firm over those that don't?

It sounds like the lack of such support for Inkscape, or any number of other libre programs, is an important component of effective FUD, an obstacle for adoption, and a potential source of professional developers for these projects.

Now, I'm not a developer, and I only have a rough grasp of how FOSS development actually works. So please feel free to enlighten me where I am wrong.

Proprietary software and the revenue that comes from means you can employ an entire team of devs to improve the quality of the product, and eliminate bugs. LibreOffice is nice, but Office is nicer. GIMP is nice, Adobe is nicer.

When you run a business, you want to do the best job possible. And no matter how high proprietary software costs are, people costs are much higher. If you keep your people happy, productive, making nice products, then whatever one time cost you paid for your software is irrelevant.

IMO the biggest obstacle to Linux adoption is the lack of proprietary software, open source simply doesn't make alot of economic sense for alot of products.

Collaboration works for the Linux kernel and GNU userland only because the people who use Linux are likely to be programmers. You think the kind of people who use GIMP and Adobe products know anything about programming? Open source software makes sense for people who have the knowledge to use their 'freedom'. For people who don't know, it makes less sense.

HermanAB
September 19th, 2012, 05:22 AM
MAMBA...

It is just another clueless bloke in Africa trying to scratch a living. Give him a break.