Reply to: E-Petition: Migrate all government IT to Linux based systems

[darmstadt]

This would never have happened under Labour

[stek]

The only HMG project I got involved with was a prime example of how they got caught up with the latest then fad of modularisation. It not only ended up with far too many modules to be efficient, but they forced the supplier to add too many "nice to have" features to the software libraries all at once, which didn't help performance either.

Result? It ran like a dog.

I've been on three, all using AIX on POWER7.

[Sysman]

The thing is, many if not most HMG projects really are simple databases. When you consider the kinds of online services that manage to get up and running and servicing millions of users a day with nothing more than a small group of college dropouts behind them, it seems preposterous that so many HMG projects drag on for years before finally failing and being shut down without ever having seen a single real user.

The only HMG project I got involved with was a prime example of how they got caught up with the latest then fad of modularisation. It not only ended up with far too many modules to be efficient, but they forced the supplier to add too many "nice to have" features to the software libraries all at once, which didn't help performance either.

Result? It ran like a dog.

[Bunk]

The thing is, many if not most HMG projects really are simple databases. When you consider the kinds of online services that manage to get up and running and servicing millions of users a day with nothing more than a small group of college dropouts behind them, it seems preposterous that so many HMG projects drag on for years before finally failing and being shut down without ever having seen a single real user.

Most startups have the benefit of starting small and expanding the infrastructure once they need it though. HMG projects need to support lots of users straight away. I do agree though, it shouldn't be as difficult as they make it.

[eek]

FTFY.

But the latest word I have is that Microsoft are getting Oracle-like for enterprise licence prices (i.e. eye wateringly expensive).

Yep Sql server 2012 has a 30% price increase attached to it and changes to the versions to ensure that is just the start of it.

[Sysman]

See they are doing this all wrong, the money is in Oracle Licences not OS, PostgreSQL anyone?

FTFY.

But the latest word I have is that Microsoft are getting Oracle-like for enterprise licence prices (i.e. eye wateringly expensive).

[NickFitz]

Although AtW has been quiet on this thread, I'm surprised he hasnt piped up how it's "just a simple database"

The thing is, many if not most HMG projects really are simple databases. When you consider the kinds of online services that manage to get up and running and servicing millions of users a day with nothing more than a small group of college dropouts behind them, it seems preposterous that so many HMG projects drag on for years before finally failing and being shut down without ever having seen a single real user.

[Mr.Whippy]

I fear the almighty expensive feck-up HMG would make of such a project, if they can't even get nationwide access to patient care records right.

Exactly...the usual suspects would be lining up to get their cut of the untold billions it'd cost to then probably walk away 5 years down the line saying "sorry, we couldn't deliver but you still owe us £XX billion please". kerching!

Although AtW has been quiet on this thread, I'm surprised he hasnt piped up how it's "just a simple database" and that SKA would do it for £94.99 +VAT. Perhaps he's already working on the bid

[Doggy Styles]

I fear the almighty expensive feck-up HMG would make of such a project, if they can't even get nationwide access to patient care records right.

I'd also be concerned with having customised OS all over the place, and the maintenance and trouble-shooting problems that would bring.

I'm not sure how much we'd gain from it all either. Apart from a good old gravy train for contractors! Until they eventually cancel it of course.

[SimonMac]

They prevent you from installing the OS and the applications on other computers than the ones you've paid the licence for. They prevent you from seeing and modifying the source code. They prevent you from deciding when and how to update/upgrade the software because it's their marketing folks to decide for you. They prevent you from choosing to buy a laptop without Windows because 99.9% of laptops on the market come with Windows and you replace it you'll violate the manufacturer's T&C's. Just for starters...

Yeah yeah, but apart from all that, what do they prevent you doing?

Linus Torvalds is not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy

[SimonMac]

See they are doing this all wrong, the money is in Oracle Licences not OS, mySQL anyone?

[d000hg]

They prevent you from installing the OS and the applications on other computers than the ones you've paid the licence for.

That's nothing to do with it being closed source, is it?

They prevent you from deciding when and how to update/upgrade the software because it's their marketing folks to decide for you.

That's not true.

They prevent you from choosing to buy a laptop without Windows because 99.9% of laptops on the market come with Windows and you replace it you'll violate the manufacturer's T&C's.

Please provide a citation for this claim.

This is the part that FOSS appeared to overcome:

They prevent you from seeing and modifying the source code.

the idea that you should have access to the source code so you can modify it or fix it based on your needs. This is a valid argument, all the crud of GPL and 'free' came later IIRC. Licensed software can provide the source, free software can be closed source.

[Bunk]

They prevent you from installing the OS and the applications on other computers than the ones you've paid the licence for. They prevent you from seeing and modifying the source code. They prevent you from deciding when and how to update/upgrade the software because it's their marketing folks to decide for you. They prevent you from choosing to buy a laptop without Windows because 99.9% of laptops on the market come with Windows and you replace it you'll violate the manufacturer's T&C's. Just for starters...

Yeah yeah, but apart from all that, what do they prevent you doing?

[petergriffin]

What do Microsoft prevent you from doing with Windows OS's?

They prevent you from installing the OS and the applications on other computers than the ones you've paid the licence for. They prevent you from seeing and modifying the source code. They prevent you from deciding when and how to update/upgrade the software because it's their marketing folks to decide for you. They prevent you from choosing to buy a laptop without Windows because 99.9% of laptops on the market come with Windows and you replace it you'll violate the manufacturer's T&C's. Just for starters...

[d000hg]

The thing I never quite got my head round with your typical GPL OSS is what happens when you link to it. Fine, you can use Linux and LibreOffice and your documents are your property. But if your code interacts with GPL code, it's caught under GPL itself, yes? If that happens who is it you have to make your code available to - only the people using your software, or the people who developed the GPL code your code linked to?

I tried asking this to GPL mailing lists but they either get all frothy-mouthed, or accuse you of trolling and deliberately not understanding tom be divisive.

So what is the situation when the government uses OSS code as opposed to an OSS infrastructure?