Munich gives up on GNU/Linux and free/open source software
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2014/08/munich-city-linux-switching-back-windows
Its a shame because I feel that they are giving up and this will fall on the backs of the tax payers. This is also why its essential to get younger people educated about free and open source software at an early age and understand it so when they enter the workforce, they won't be confused.
Let's not spread the FUD, shall we? The actual headline of the article is "Is Munich City About to Switch Back to Windows from Linux?", despite the clickbait URL. And looks like the source for this rumor is Neowin, a Microsoft news web site. This is exactly the kind of level of journalism one can expect from a blog titled omgubuntu.
Of course proprietary software will not interoperate and of course this will mean trouble for the users. However the sensible solution hardly is to use more proprietary software.
I think the real reason is that people are so hung up on Microsoft Office and used to the interface and the tools. Other than that, they can use the same web browsers (Chrome, Chromium, Firefox) and have the ability to open and save PDF files on the majority of GNU/Linux distros.
LibreOffice, if it had an interface that wasn't straight out of 1997, probably would have been better received. The look of that office suite has been an issue for a long time and all we got were some graphical mockups from a few years ago with nothing actually happening. I use it because its free, but to the average consumer, it looks amateur and horribly dated.
I know you guys hate to hear this, but if they used an interface that was friendly to Windows (Cinnamon or MATE) and/or Mac (Elementary OS), then it would have been better. Heck, even using Ubuntu with Unity would have been an improvement.
I had never heard of the OS they used for the deployment and it was probably not the best option to go with something that wasn't Ubuntu or at least Ubuntu based. What the hell is LiMux?
t3g said:
> I had never heard of the OS they used for the deployment and it was probably
> not the best option to go with something that wasn't Ubuntu or at least Ubuntu
> based. What the hell is LiMux?
From Wikipedia:
LiMux is a project by the city of Munich to migrate their software systems from closed-source, proprietary Microsoft products to free and open source software....
LiMux is also the name of the Linux (sic) distribution being used for the project.... It was first based on Debian, but later changed to Ubuntu.... [V]ersion 4.1 available from August 2012 is... based on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS.
Why did they decide to make their own distro?
I don't know, but it's not like they built it entirely from scratch, and other government projects to migrate to GNU/Linux have done the same thing.
Just look at the interface. It uses KDE 3.5.
Yeah. What of it?
It looks really ugly, I don't think anyone would like to use such an interface.
Sure. I think it's ugly, too.
It is characterless but functional, essentially what a government needs. :)
See the screenshot date: 2004-01-21
And the info:
Early LiMux linux prototype screenshot from 2004/2005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux#mediaviewer/File:LiMux.jpg
OK, it's not that bad anymore (from looking at some newer screenshots) but it still uses KDE 3.5 and is based on the unsupported Ubuntu 10.04.
I first heard about this from this post: http://arstechnica.com/business/2014/08/linux-on-the-desktop-pioneer-munich-now-considering-a-switch-back-to-windows/
It includes this bit:
"[Josef Schmid's] views aren't held universally, with the City Council defending the 'LiMux' project and suggesting that the coalition administration is using the Linux (sic) migration as a scapegoat. The Council says the use of open source software has yielded savings of more than €10 million (more than $13 million).
Karl-Heinz Schneider, head of municipal IT services, seems to endorse this view. He says it's no surprise that a new platform should temporarily generate more support requests, and he wasn't aware of any particular complaints."
I think this comment pretty much sums up that Microsoft may have a hand in this:
"Microsoft, whose German HQ relocates to Munich in 2016, say they are 'ready to talk' if and when things change."
"Microsoft, whose German HQ relocates to Munich in 2016, say they are 'ready to talk' if and when things change."
I think it pretty much explains the whole situation. Sad to say, but given Microsoft's previous tactics I don't give Linux much of a chance in Munich in the long term. It would be a fantastic victory for Microsoft for them to "win the city back" and they'll make much of it if they do and a perpetual thorn in their sides to have the city their German HQ is in not using Windows.
That said, there are plenty of other examples of Linux being used elsewhere in Europe, Munich is just another city and anyone with a brain will spot the Microsoft connection to any pressure they might be under.
Having worked in places like this, I get the feeling that some of the reasons why the users complain can be extremely shallow, 'Doesn't run iTunes but I don't want to tell the Boss that' kind of things.
Only anecdotal evidence here but it is a factor.
I get the feeling that some of the reasons why the users complain can be extremely shallow
Yup, I can attest to that. And some will simply refuse to cooperate - they will not try, they will not learn, they will make up problems and whine to the wrong people, deliberately, they will do things wrong then claim they did them right but "this stupid software breaks everything", they will bring in devices they weren't allowed to bring in when they used Windows, etc, etc, etc. Anything so they can get Windows back.
I never cease to be amazed over the psychological reactions people display when you take Windows off them or even suggest they try something else. Panic, unreasonable behaviour, loss of higher brain functions, displays of helplessness - from "grown ups" (remember when there used to be grown ups in the world? Now it seems there are mostly just badly behaved, stupid children masquerading as adults).
Considering iTunes had an unpatched phin-phisher back door in it for over four years, any employees installing it on corporate hardware could cause huge problems for a company.
I am a member!
I'm sorry to hear this.
I also think t3g made an important point, that is, it's "...essential to get younger people educated..." This made me ponder. Perhaps this education includes creativity.
Artists need to be free, and they aren't on propriety software. It's a conundrum.
Tech companies are riding the creative "image" to their billion dollar yachts; I'm not sorry to say, "i" before an app doesn't make one an artist.
Perhaps education would best serve the under served, e.g., to get the creative applications into hands that will use it in new, cool ways. And perhaps we should focus on after school programs and creative applications, especially in under served areas. Then perhaps kids will get a grasp of the tech and start doing cool things. Perhaps Libre needs a Jazz, Blues, OG tech movement.
A problem with this is that whilst it's relatively easy to get all the proprietary software for free from torrent sites, there is no motive to try libre software other than from a moral point of view. So you could try to get youngsters to try Ardour and free synths, but if they can get Reason and Cubase and all those fabulous VST plugins, for free, they'll not see any reason to change.
Awakening a sense of overriding morality is what seems to me to be the need. When people think along the lines of "so what if I can get proprietary software for free, that just taints me and all I produce" we might start to get somewhere, but awakening that in people who live in a world where morality is regarded as a quaint affectation for weak people will be a Herculean task. A good proportion of Linux users don't care about proprietary vs libre - I know, I've argued with lots of them. They just don't want to know and get aggressive if you press the point.
A few months back I came across a review for yet another Debian Testing based distro (people seem to have forgotten what Testing means) stuffed with all the proprietary drivers and libraries and plugins. The creator became most aggressive when I suggested that he had added nothing to Linux but had, in fact, only made things worse, as he hadn't even bothered to leave a note explaining the differences and offering his users a chance to make an informed choice. All he had done is compact the idea that "Linux means avoiding paying Microsoft" and nothing else.
Convenience trumps morality in this day and age.
One can avoid paying Microsoft all they want, if it isn't dealt with moral terms and the the idea of proprietary software isn't considered a 'major issue' - then they will not see themselves get entrapped by the next big company that is out to lock people in.
"I have escaped Microsoft, now I use Apple" is not an improvement. I'm am talking to the converted here. :P
I am a member!
I believe it may be possible to override the convenience factor by providing informative and free (actually as in gratis) classes with FREE software. This could be foundation courses such as image manipulation, video/audio editing, basic web development, and—importantly—computer programming (especially video games for the kids).
Perhaps this may be best via existing institutions, e.g., public libraries. These courses could be sprinkled with why FREE software is important; for example, perhaps a facilitator may share the reasons "why" she teaches the course.
The program could focus on the very young—elementary school level—but may also be open to the general public. Notably, it could even target senior citizens...basic word processing our even HTML. We need these voices.
I think the power is with the users; the people that are doing things. If the young to start very young...especially those who wouldn't normally have access to computer programming...we may be in store for some new/unexpected work and much needed change in "the industry" and art.
These are some initial thoughts; I'm still reflecting.
I hope they will keep using GNU/Linux and not come back to proprietary operating systems.
Would be good that others towns and cities adopt Trisquel. ^^
All of you, read this: http://techrights.org/2014/08/19/munich-astroturf/
I think an important technique is improving functionality, and features. Linux is not limited in any way compared to closed source alternatives, which create their own limitations, and baggage. The list of constraints closed source places on itself are endless, as is the potential of Linux to accomplish just about anything that can be envisioned in a software context. When Linux can do the job of "X" application better than the official program, and do things the alternatives can not, it makes it a no-brainer for people.
A kind of half-example is android (there many things I hate about android, mostly hardware issues, binary blobs-drivers, and security) but I don't think too many people would argue that a windows platform would do a better job.
When Linux offers more options (which for my purposes I would argue it does) than mac-m$ people will shift automatically. I do think you need to appeal to peoples vices though, I don’t think this affects the principals Linux upholds, I think people just gravitate to whats "Easy". Many of us however eventually become bored with a lot of the easy stuff, and we have the freedom with Linux not to be limited by it. We need to get past the Linux can't do x task problem, and offer more, beat them at their own game. Things like Tox are a good example, offer people a easier to use Skype alternative, with the Linux spirit of superior security, and finally don't sell out to these corrupters of technology.
People in the free software movement do not care about "the principals Linux upholds" or about "the Linux spirit of superior security"? They care about the "the principals GNU upholds" and about "the four essential freedoms any user deserves".
In this way, your post is a good example of why only convincing new users with "functionality and features" does not advance our battle. We end up with GNU users who have never heard of GNU and who would leave free software as soon as they find proprietary software that "offers more options" : http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.html
We need to focus on our ideals, to talk about freedoms: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
We have so many free software users but so few that understand the social/ethical/political problem behind proprietary software. Most of them use Firefox, VLC or LibreOffice on Windows. But even among those using GNU/Linux, most of them do not see any problem in running proprietary software (e.g., in the Linux kernel) and have never heard of GNU.
If you don’t think Linux is about creating a secure environment, then find me one Dev who thinks allowing third party executables to be installed with a double-click should be permitted in their distribution. I would argue that security is a core tenant of the free software movement.
When missionaries converted native Americans to Christianity, they started by including some of the native traditions into Christian ceremony, and even built hybrid monastery huts to ease the transition.
I'm not here to stir shit up, and I won't force my beliefs on anyone, but when I need to run a virtual machine to achieve certain functionality, there is more work that needs to be done. If I could do it myself, I would.
Your second point is only true if development stops, and proprietary was somehow "better" than free software, or incapable of achieving these things.
Focusing ONLY on ideals can be taken to the level of the absurd. People need exposer to the free software world, before they can ever understand the ideology.
Finally I think most of the problems causing interaction between proprietary software and the Linux kernel are created by hardware developers. That and "my Linux box doesn't support (x).
Those are the "core tenants of the free software movement": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
Discover them. You will hopefully acknowledge that you, like any user, deserves essential freedoms that are above any convenience.
Sorry, I can't stand this anymore.
I will tell you one of the reasons why the free software movement remains tiny even after the biggest spying scandal in history:
Because its main leader is running around, telling non-technical persons to visit https://gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html
and "download an ethical operating system".
Please choose 50 average persons - you can even tell them about free software beforehand and make sure that they agree on the necessity -, and give them this link.
How many of them do you think will end up as happy free software users?
I can tell you: non of them.
They will end up with dragora or blag or ututo, facing insuperable obstacles and finally giving up.
This is the result of this "freedom is all that matters, we don't talk about anything else and give a shit about practicle things" attitude.
People will _never_ sacrifice huge parts of their computing, even huge parts of their whole life for freedom, except maybe an insiginificant tiny fraction of them, which gather around mainly in this forum.
They won't quit their university career because it includes the use of non-free software, they won't stop buying plane tickets over the internet because it needs proprietary javascript and they won't give up their hobbies as well.
You can tell them about freedom as long as you want, this fact won't change and anybody should agree on this.
So what's the purpose of this attitude?
Freedom IS important and we should tell people, but freedom is not ALL that matters, so why does this list on GNU doesn't include any other criteria for endorsing operating systems than just freedom?
Why does stallman not talk about anything else than freedom?
Can't he see that it's pointless?
But maybe it's not about influence, it's not about actually freeing people. It's just about praising own ideals.
You could always ask him personally: name at domain
I do think that BLAG shouldn't be listed, because frankly the latest release is horribly out-of-date and broken. (It's still listed because the BLAG developers are supposedly working on the next release; I don't think a general supposed plan like this should serve as the basis for whether it's listed.) It would also be nice if recommendations for different kinds of users were given, rather than just listing them alphabetically.
I don't think it's wrong for the FSF to only endorse completely libre systems, though.
If only Ruben had chosen a name that started with A, or a number.....
Most GNU/Linux users have never heard of GNU. Like Ishamael, they say they are "Linux users". They praise the features in the operating system, its security, etc. And yet, as you write, "the free software movement remains tiny even after the biggest spying scandal in history". If people still do not care about their computer freedoms (such as "not being spied on"), it is because they did not hear enough about freedoms. Not the opposite.
Once a user acknowledges she has fundamental freedoms that deserve to be respected, she never goes back. A transition is certainly needed: she starts with imperfect solution: free software on Windows, then a distribution with blobs because she did not know about firmware issues, etc. Anyway, her objective is to reach 100% freedom in her computing life. Not 99%. The FSF is the much needed lighthouse guiding towards this objective.
If the user only heard of the practical advantages of some free software (she has rather heard about "open source software"), she may use it. However, she sees no problem in using proprietary software in parallel. Why would there be a problem when Linux includes proprietary firmware?, when her distribution proposes Adobe Flash during the install?, when it even spies on its users: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.html
Not understanding the injustice of proprietary software (nobody told her), the user goes back to proprietary software whenever it becomes practically better. Insisting on practical advantages only has a short term "influence". It is "pointless" w.r.t. the goals of freeing computer users.
That is why "the free software movement remains tiny even after the biggest spying scandal in history".
I want to stress the main point of my disagreement:
"Once a user acknowledges she has fundamental freedoms that deserve to be respected, she never goes back."
This statement is wrong. It's just not true for the average user.
The sacrifices she has to make are much too high.
I wish the fsf would focus more on creating new free software oppurtinities instead of telling people to stop using proprietary software. They won't, even if they understand that freedom matters.
This doesn't include not telling people about freedom like the opensource movement does - I never claimed this.
I believe that statement is true. Even if sacrifices are to be made, the user who understands she deserves freedoms will keep on going front, towards software freedom. The user who goes back does not value her freedoms. She is the "average user" you are talking about. She has never heard of GNU or of the FSF. She only seeks features, security, convenience, etc.
Em 2014-08-31 13:06, name at domain escreveu:
> I want to stress the main point of my disagreement:
> "Once a user acknowledges she has fundamental freedoms that deserve to
> be respected, she never goes back."
>
> This statement is wrong. It's just not true for the average user.
> The sacrifices she has to make are much too high.
>
> I wish the fsf would focus more on creating new free software
> oppurtinities instead of telling people to stop using proprietary
> software. They won't, even if they understand that freedom matters.
> This doesn't include not telling people about freedom like the
> opensource movement does - I never claimed this.
My, my... I was hoping not to get myself into this mess since I'm not
using my computer (so I can't sign messages using OpenPGP), but since I
have half an hour left at this internet cafe (here called LAN house), I
have decided to reply.
Just as short as it can be, my answer is as follows:
We mustn't forget that the FSF isn't responsible for all the free
software projects. They can participate in some of them, but (as far as
I can see,) they're generally good at maintaining the Free Software
Definition and related articles.
If there isn't a software with some feature, but if there is a software
with similar goals, this usually means the project is still being
developed towards such goal, or that it's facing difficulties (like loss
of community support, contribution, or interest), or that it's being
blocked by other things (like software patents, closed standards (if
this even exists), non-standard implementations, legal issues, or even
philosophical issues (if such project decides to follow some definition
or guideline, like the Free Software Definition, or the Guidelines for
Free Software Distributions).
Best regards, ADFENO.
Have a nice day.
"If you don’t think Linux is about creating a secure environment, then find me one Dev who thinks allowing third party executables to be installed with a double-click should be permitted in their distribution"
With that logic Genesis, Yes, ELP, and Jehtro Tull are all only about the money. Just show me a single member of those bands that have gone bankrupt and smiled during the bankrupting process :)
I also disagree with the Christianity example: (Unless you've got a link that proves otherwise)the native traditions that were included (if any) probably didn't really conflict with what the missionaries believed (there's a reason native american gods aren't part of the Christianity taught).
Using proprietary software is thus a very different matter in my view.
" Focusing ONLY on ideals can be taken to the level of the absurd. People need exposure to the free software world, before they can ever understand the ideology."
Exposure to the world and to the ideology behind it are 2 different things. A lot of people are in the free software world, but for the "wrong" reasons. The proper reason is not taught when people enter the world, but marginalised.
In the case of free software (Open source, actually) too often the ideology is removed from exposure, and what little exposure it gets too often comes with something like a "this is as radical and bad and dangerous as Communism" tag. That in turn has turned the free software world onto a road at the end of which it's probably not a free software world at all.
I read your links Banana.
If freedom was really as important to everyone who claimed it was as they say (Debian Devs for example) I would be able to raise my WIFI above 30 dBm without recompiling my CRDA. Also people who asked about the problem (other than myself) would not be treated rudely on the forums.
"With that logic Genesis, Yes, ELP, and Jehtro Tull are all only about the money. Just show me a single member of those bands that have gone bankrupt and smiled during the bankrupting process :)"
So what you are saying is malware is not allowed to run do to philosophical concerns not security related ones? ;)
"I also disagree with the Christianity example: (Unless you've got a link that proves otherwise)the native traditions that were included (if any) probably didn't really conflict with what the missionaries believed (there's a reason native american gods aren't part of the Christianity taught)."
I'm not especially religious, but my point was exactly that, the "false gods" will be phased out over time, not incorporated. There is no reason someone could not create a program that handles flash securely for example.
Anyway, I not going to argue with you folks, I'm still grateful for the help you've given me earlier. Cheers
I do not know what "CRDA" is but you apparently have the source code and are free to modify it. If freedom 3 is available as well, you can distribute copies of your modified version to others. By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes.
Freedom has nothing to do with features in the software you receive and everything to do with being in control (alone and in community) what requires the four freedom. If CRDA's source code was unavailable, you would be helpless.
"I'm not especially religious, but my point was exactly that, the "false gods" will be phased out over time, not incorporated. There is no reason someone could not create a program that handles flash securely for example."
From the looks of it, unfortunately, that's doesn't seem to be happening with Open Source. Not in my view, anyway.
I think Open Source is actually incorporating proprietary-ness into their "software beliefs", if you will.
"With that logic Genesis, Yes, ELP, and Jehtro Tull are all only about the money. Just show me a single member of those bands that have gone bankrupt and smiled during the bankrupting process :)"
So what you are saying is malware is not allowed to run do to philosophical concerns not security related ones? ;)
The point I was trying (and apparently failed, sorry!) to make with my ELP, Tull, Genesis example was not that the devs don't care about security (they do!), but that it's not their only concern so one can't say they're all about security (just like the fact that despite those bands caring a lot about money, they're not all about them since they still make great music).
Perhaps I was placing a tad too much focus on a few words in that one......
the "false gods" will be phased out over time, not incorporated
Depends which branch of Christianity you're talking about. Catholicism, which was born in Imperial Rome, took from the Roman tradition the practice of incorporating local gods and saints into the Catholic hierarchy, as well as aligning Christian holy days with pre-existing pagan days.
A bit like the way certain (most) distros now don't care about freedom or power, but only care for convenience and being as Corporate and proprietary friendly as possible. And just as anyone who tried to question Catholic Church authority met a nasty end, so does anyone who dares to question the practice of presenting every Linux distro as a blow for freedom when most are the exact opposite.
salparadise
Very well compare and spoken with fortitude and certitude.
"the "false gods" will be phased out over time, not incorporated"
Let's agree to disagree, then. I personally think the opposite of the phasing out process is what is happening, like an undercover officer forgetting who (s)he is if there be such a thing (which I think there is).
My point was features-convenience do not conflict with freedom-power, if the constraining elements of closed source are removed, and solely the functionality is achieved. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I'm not ignoring the trend, which is obvious. My point is these things ARE possible. If a given proprietary program does something unique-useful, and also locks users behind a text wall, as well as siphoning out their personal information for use by 3rd parties; a new program can be created that does nothing but fulfill the basic functionality of said program.