Linux vendor Red Hat, and 17 other vendors, have protested a Swiss government contract given to Microsoft without any public bidding. The move exposes a wider Microsoft monopoly that European governments accept, despite their lip service for open source, according to commentators.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-06
I recommend a new software category - Microsoft Only Software Solution (MOSS)
Advantages:
1. You don't have to think about purchases - you just check a box next to the Microsoft Solution in each category you are interested in (IIS, Visual Studio, Exchange, Sql Server, SharePoint, etc)
2. You don't have to think about how to integrate your software solutions - in general they all come from the same company, so they tend to work together.
3. You don't have to think about training - just send you folks down to the local Microsoft-certified training center. Also you can require all your developers be Microsft certified in their respective category - DBA, Software Developer, Project Management.
Bottom line, you don't have to think. See you at the water cooler!
Member since:
2008-07-15
Member since:
2008-04-18
EU attacked Microsoft repeatedly for being a monopoly, but that is not the root of the problem. The root of the problem is the laziness and the stupidity of the government employees. Microsoft's monopoly is enforced by these employees who buy stuff from Microsoft without checking whether there is a better solution. This is the direction the attack should go. I really hope these lawsuits spread across Europe.
Member since:2005-07-06
Microsoft is not a party to this lawsuit. This is a case filed against the government for not allowing for a public tender as governments are supposed to be doing. So the direction is already the way you want it to be. Even without similar lawsuits all over Europe, the outcome of the case will set precedent and if that's favourable, the rest of it will fall in line. Just my non lawyerly opinion.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-10-08
Allthough Switzerland isn't in the EU, I can confirm this for Germany. The federal government as well as the government of the states dictate what to use in certain places, and they dictate "Windows", because they are, as you mentioned, to lazy and / or to stupid and maybe too hungry for some extra money (can't confirm, just an assumption). They don't know enough about the field where they make decisions others have to obey.
For example, it is explicitely dictated what to use in schools: old "Windows" versions with old "Office" applications. This has two effects: Pupils only know "Windows", and because they are trained on old systems, they have problems using newer systems, and of course massive trouble using different systems.
The same goes for organisations that educate upcoming professionals, especially when they are supported by federal money. The works agency does a contract with them, including "We'll pay you as long as you meet our requirements. These are 'Windows' and 'Office 2000' and Internet for each PC you use."
I think the situation is similar in other european countries: Lazy and stupid bureaucrats send lazy and stupid children on their way to become the reliant basis of MICROS~1's monopoly.
They simply can't imagine that there's something else. It's like with watching TV. You need a TV for this. You cannot watch TV with your microwave oven or with a book. :-)
What I want to say with this: They are indoctrinated that there's nothing except "Windows", simply because MICROS~1 invented the PC, the mouse, the Internet and everything. You cannot believe how many people are really sure it is that way.
One argument could be now: They do only buy what's on the shelf in the store - and that's mostly "Windows" products. No, most of them are aware of a "friend who is a PC genius" who can get all the fine software for them for free (i. e. pirated copies, but nobody cares) and is so nice and installs it for them. So they believe that "Windows" is absolutely free of problems - because they let others deal with it when they occur.
Because "Windows" is still present in business (and if it's only to run a 3270 client to communicate with the mainframe) people will want the same pictures at home as they know them from work. "Pictures" refers to how a GUI looks like, fanous german terminology. :-)
I don't think so, because except the vendors of non-"Windows" software are the only ones interested in it. As long as the users can be fooled that easily (by aggressive advertising, by indoctrination, by stupid commands about what to use), things won't change.
Member since:
2005-07-13
Is there a bylaw in the Swiss governmet that states that these kind of things require a public bidding amoungst companies in the private sector? That would seem very strange. While the US goverment usually has these bidding wars to see who can provide teh least expensive solution, not every country (i would bet cose to half of more) adhears to such a scheme to as to who provides the services for them.
Just seems odd this would even be a real issue. And yes I know people can site that the EU has found Microsoft to be a monopoly (or at least practicing monopolistic trates), but that really doesn't have anything to do with this, unless there was a big forcefull push frmo MS that has yet to be disclosed. If they want windows, and they don't want ot shop around, let them have it. maybe this is a bigger deal than it seems, who knows....
Member since:2005-07-06
That's kind of what this law suit is all about. However I'm guessing that they wouldn't be going ahead with the suit if there weren't some sort of laws on the books requiring public bidding. Most countries in Europe do.
Why? It is quite common in all kinds of other contracts, so why not a new desktop computer solution?
That a government bureau can spent millions of tax payers dollars (or Franks in this case) without soliciting bids or any other kind of public oversight seem like a bit of an issue to me. I know I like my government to at least pretend it's trying to get value for money from my tax dollars.
Totally unrelated to the suit. This has nothing to do with Microsoft. It has to do with a government bureau offering a large contract to a company without any sort of procedure for competing companies to even try to bid for the contract. The fact that the company in question is Microsoft is irrelevant. Had they offered a contract to pave a bunch of roads to a company without letting other companies bid for the job they probably would have gotten sued in exactly the same way.
Member since:2007-02-17
There is more to it than just value for money.
The laws to put large government contracts out to competitive tender are commonly put in place in an effort to prevent corruption. Without the need to tender such contracts, individuals in government purchasing departments could be in a position to just award a large contract, funded by public monies, to whomever they chose. The potential for bribery, corruption and kickbacks here is enormous.
Hence the need for public accountability. Hence the need for the awarding of contracts to be seen as scrupulously fair.
On the face of it, RedHat have a very good case here (but IANAL), and some head of IT purchasing in Switzerland is presumably in quite a bit of trouble.
Member since:2005-07-26
You do realize that Red Hat just wants to be allowed to place a competitive bid?
I am not sure you read the article, if you find it despicable that a company that has shown they can provide a workable solution in other areas of the same Swiss government feels wrongfully excluded from a fair competition for a contract.
I suspect you may be just trolling, but if you are serious, please elaborate and we can discuss the factual issues.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-14
