4 ms·

The problem with this article is the sensationalism. Did Microsoft lobby? Certainty, did they "interfere with a sovereign nation's decision to create a level p

The problem with this article is the sensationalism. Did Microsoft lobby? Certainty, did they "interfere with a sovereign nation's decision to create a level playing-field"? Please, give me a break, they interfered with your desire to do something, and whether right or wrong, the last time I checked, you weren't a sovereign nation.

jahewson 15y ago
The UK is a sovereign nation.
- jwcacces 15y ago
  Yes, but the author is not. Lobbying is lobbying. It is not interfering. That's my point.
  - tankenmate 15y ago
    Considering that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems were trumpeting this before the elections only to drop it afterwards smacks of either deceit or stupidity; take your pick.
    - estel 15y ago
      Trumpeting? It might have been touted as an element of policy after questioning, but "support for open standards" is never going to be a vote-winner in an election.
      - toyg 15y ago
        There is a large number of UK geeks who genuinely believed Tories and (especially) LibDems would have reduced the influence of Microsoft on public procurement once elected. I know because I've been surprised by this over and over (I live in the North of England, where being a Tory is, er, very unpopular by default, and with reason). For them, this issue was indeed a vote-winner, so this u-turn will hurt, especially among LibDems... but then again, hardly surprising by now.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  Where did they interfere with the process? They paid handsomely to influence the decision making process. They didn't destroy supply lines so that the UK couldn't acquire a Linux CDs. There is a difference between influence and interference.
tehwalrus 15y ago
sorry? this decision relates to the government's own IT procurement, not anyone's right to use OSS.
- jwcacces 15y ago
  I agree. And I agree the the government should use open standards. I just don't like the sensationalism of the article.
  - brudgers 15y ago
    I believe the government should use whatever best serves the public welfare. Given that the bulk of the IT expense for a government is going to be support not initial purchase. Open software requires support approximately as much as proprietary systems do. The unfortunate fact is that although one can call Microsoft technical support, one cannot "get Linux on the phone." The open software ecosystem is changing for the worse - e.g. Oracle's IP strategy with regard to software developed by Sun, particularly the mission critical (for a government) Open Office suite. Do not misunderstand me, I have political concerns about governments partnering with business as the gateway to a slippery slope. Were this story about IBM rather than Microsoft, it would largely pass unnoticed on HN (and were it a story about government using iPads which depend on Apple's cloud the praise would be laid on so thick one would need hip waders).
    - tankenmate 15y ago
      one cannot "get Linux on the phone." Oh please; both Canonical (Ubuntu) and Red Hat are more than happy to take your money in return for picking up the phone. Not only that there are hundreds of medium and small companies that will do the same, not mention the thousands of individual contractors. If not being able to pick up the phone and get someone on the other end to help with your Linux problems is bugging you, give me your money I'll be happy to fix your problem.
      - brudgers 15y ago
        >"Canonical (Ubuntu) and Red Hat are more than happy to take your money in return for picking up the phone" Keeping in mind that Linux is but a stand in for open source in general, of course they are as ready to take one's money as Microsoft is. I suspect that Canonical is no more likely to recommend switching to a Red Hat distro than they are to recommend switching to Microsoft...and vice versa. But to delve into the larger issue, is Canonical or Red Hat more expert in supporting Open Office or are one's citizens better served by a separate contract with Oracle for that support? And if one doesn't go to Oracle for that support, does one switch to Office Libre and if so, who does a government hire to manage that switch? At the scale of the UK government, there is no course which is free of vendor lock-in. Governments don't pivot.
JS_startup 15y ago
Agreed. From the way the article is written you would think that some Microsoft thugs held a gun to the Queen's head instead of, you know, lobbying for their interests.

jahewson 15y ago

The UK is a sovereign nation.

jwcacces 15y ago
Yes, but the author is not. Lobbying is lobbying. It is not interfering. That's my point.
- tankenmate 15y ago
  Considering that both the Conservatives and Lib Dems were trumpeting this before the elections only to drop it afterwards smacks of either deceit or stupidity; take your pick.
  - estel 15y ago
    Trumpeting? It might have been touted as an element of policy after questioning, but "support for open standards" is never going to be a vote-winner in an election.
    - toyg 15y ago
      There is a large number of UK geeks who genuinely believed Tories and (especially) LibDems would have reduced the influence of Microsoft on public procurement once elected. I know because I've been surprised by this over and over (I live in the North of England, where being a Tory is, er, very unpopular by default, and with reason). For them, this issue was indeed a vote-winner, so this u-turn will hurt, especially among LibDems... but then again, hardly surprising by now.
stonemetal 15y ago
Where did they interfere with the process? They paid handsomely to influence the decision making process. They didn't destroy supply lines so that the UK couldn't acquire a Linux CDs. There is a difference between influence and interference.

tehwalrus 15y ago

sorry? this decision relates to the government's own IT procurement, not anyone's right to use OSS.

jwcacces 15y ago
I agree. And I agree the the government should use open standards. I just don't like the sensationalism of the article.
- brudgers 15y ago
  I believe the government should use whatever best serves the public welfare. Given that the bulk of the IT expense for a government is going to be support not initial purchase. Open software requires support approximately as much as proprietary systems do. The unfortunate fact is that although one can call Microsoft technical support, one cannot "get Linux on the phone." The open software ecosystem is changing for the worse - e.g. Oracle's IP strategy with regard to software developed by Sun, particularly the mission critical (for a government) Open Office suite. Do not misunderstand me, I have political concerns about governments partnering with business as the gateway to a slippery slope. Were this story about IBM rather than Microsoft, it would largely pass unnoticed on HN (and were it a story about government using iPads which depend on Apple's cloud the praise would be laid on so thick one would need hip waders).
  - tankenmate 15y ago
    one cannot "get Linux on the phone." Oh please; both Canonical (Ubuntu) and Red Hat are more than happy to take your money in return for picking up the phone. Not only that there are hundreds of medium and small companies that will do the same, not mention the thousands of individual contractors. If not being able to pick up the phone and get someone on the other end to help with your Linux problems is bugging you, give me your money I'll be happy to fix your problem.
    - brudgers 15y ago
      >"Canonical (Ubuntu) and Red Hat are more than happy to take your money in return for picking up the phone" Keeping in mind that Linux is but a stand in for open source in general, of course they are as ready to take one's money as Microsoft is. I suspect that Canonical is no more likely to recommend switching to a Red Hat distro than they are to recommend switching to Microsoft...and vice versa. But to delve into the larger issue, is Canonical or Red Hat more expert in supporting Open Office or are one's citizens better served by a separate contract with Oracle for that support? And if one doesn't go to Oracle for that support, does one switch to Office Libre and if so, who does a government hire to manage that switch? At the scale of the UK government, there is no course which is free of vendor lock-in. Governments don't pivot.

JS_startup 15y ago

Agreed. From the way the article is written you would think that some Microsoft thugs held a gun to the Queen's head instead of, you know, lobbying for their interests.