Taiwan opens door to open source

ZDNET ^ | June 4, 2002 | Tiffany Kary

[buaya]

Taiwan is turning its back on software from the likes of Microsoft to develop its own open-source project, according to a recent report.

The Taiwanese government plans to start an open-source project as early as next year that could save it as much as $295 million in royalty payments to Microsoft, according to a report from Taiwan's Central News Agency.

Open-source software such as the Linux operating system may be freely modified and redistributed without the legal and financial constraints of proprietary software from Microsoft, Oracle and others.

An official with the National Center for High Performance Computing, Chuang Tze-nan, announced the plan Monday. Under the project, the government will encourage research and development in office software and the opening of the source code for government agencies and private establishments.

At a meeting that included members of the government's National Science Council, Ministry of Education and other government organizations, legislators said that the government has failed to react to Microsoft's monopoly on Taiwan's office software market.

Click Here for the rest of the story.

[buaya]

I wonder how long it will take to add Taiwan to the "Axis of Evil"???

[Raymond Hendrix]

I would love to ditch microsoft. Bit I am not that good at figuring out how all of this complicated stuff works in my computer. I would change in a minute if I thought I wouldn't create a nightmare that I couldn't fix.

[buaya]

I'm a big fan of Linux; nevertheless, I admit that it isn't quite "there" yet for the average home user.

If you try one of the latest distributions (RedHat, SuSe) you'll probably find the installation to be painless. And the KDE interface isn't all that different from the Windoze interface you are already familiar with.

The biggest drawback Linux faces is the lack of familiar, commercial applications that the average user is comfortable with. This article indicates that the Taiwanese plan to develop office suite software for Linux. Will the first Linux mass-market "killer app" come from overseas?

There's lots of great, high quality GNU software out there, but at the moment, that is a different world - you should be comfortable with compiling software before you take that it. Actually, it really isn't that big of a deal once you get the hang of it.

It is possible to install Linux on your Windows machine, and configure it for "dual-boot" - you simply choose which operating system you want when you start your computer. Try it.

[Thorondir]

Good for Taiwan. If the mainland ChiCom punks don't destroy them in the next few years, this will enable them to become even more of an economic powerhouse than they already are. We may be envying them in times to come.

[buaya]

"We may be envying them in times to come."

The situation kind of reminds me of the early 70s, when US automobile executives were confidently boasting that Americans would never buy those boxy, unstylish Japanese imports in large numbers.

[Raymond Hendrix]

Thanks. I might do that. Can you refer me to a place where I can get started? I can at least follow directions!

[Dimensio]

You might look into just getting a boxed SuSE package. It's pretty easy to install and set up out of the box and you can find it at many large computer retailers...

The biggest problem is setting up your hard drive. If you're already using Windows and want to dual-boot, you'll need to do some partition managing (and you'll need to know how to fix problems that occur if you ever reinstall Windows, because Windows does things that it shouldn't to the master boot record). If you're looking to put it fresh on a computer then you'll have fewer problems.

[buaya]

You can start with the RedHat and SuSe web sites (there are lots of other distributions, too). Do a Google search on Linux and associated keywords - you'll find lots of "newbie" tutorials. Also, ask around your office, church, club, etc - there's bound to be someone who can give you a hand. Good luck!

[xrp]

Why in the world is everyone so gimped to Linux???

[SpaceBar]

Best way is to get your hands on an old 486 or a first generation pentium currently being used to prop open the service yard gate, fdisk it and install a distribution of your choice. Personally I believe Slackware is the best if you plan on actually understanding your new system. In this way, if you wipe out your file system or whatever, you haven't lost anything but gain valuable experience. If you don't have access to a fat pipe and a CD burner, try cheapbytes.com for a disk. Once you feel happy with it, then you can make the transition to a dual boot or a dedicated system on a more capable machine.

[Scott McCollum]

According to ZDNet, this is a government-supported computer project that hopes to unseat a private firm's product as the number one computing platform. The ruling Communist party in China has expressed interest in a similar Linux project on the mainland.

Should the United States move to a single computing platform (presumably Linux) supported by the Federal government in public and private industry?

If the answer is "Yes, so as to better facilitate a standard platform," why isn't Windows (which runs 90% of all desktop PCs) considered a standard?

If another answer is "Yes, because Linux is open source and more secure," why would something that is open be considered "secure." There are currently close to 4,000,000 lines of code in the Linux kernel that thousands of people have cobbled together over a period of ten years, yet there are NO back doors or security holes in Linux because it is so open? Should Coke and the Colonel open up their secret recipes for the sake of security? Were the Rosenbergs just wanting American nuclear secrets to be more open with Stalin in the 1950s?

More than anything, I'm wondering why the limited government-freedom of choice loving netizens at the Free Rebpublic would favor a government-controlled computing platform? That seems paradoxical.

I'm all for people using Linux, Mac, Unix, BSD, NeXT, Palm, Amiga or Windows OS if they want to - but I don't support a government-controlled/supported/mandated open source OS forced on the citizenry of the United States (effectively killing the private software industry). That should be for citizens and the marketplace to decide.

[Raymond Hendrix]

Thanks for all the help. I will see what I can do to wean myself off of Windows using your suggestions.

[avg_freeper]

"The Taiwanese government plans to start an open-source project"

Personally, I wonder how long before our government desides to do the same.

I can hear the dem's clamoring for their open-source rights. "Its in the Constitution! .....somewhere!

It could be the biggest software-socialist experiment in history.

Oh, and bring alot of pork $$ to the pol's that back it.

[avg_freeper]

"effectively killing the private software industry"

Regardless if the open source community acknowledges it or likes it, their software could not of been developed in a vacuum.

That there are plenty of technically knowledgeable people able to expend their free time creating open source software on cheap computers is a testament to the many good things that companies like Microsoft have brought us.

The open source crowd stands on the shoulders of private industry so-to-speak.

Perhaps one can make the case that open source software development has been beneficial to private industry.

But it is easy to see the converse. Private industry has been necessary for open source development.

[Tom Bombadil]

There is a sizeable movement in the third world toward open software. Bengladesh is looking at doing something similar to Tiwan. Give programs like Linux and openoffice.org a few years and Microsoft is going to regret some of thier decisions. Microsoft has played well to third party developers but has consistenly bullied end users.

[ThinkDifferent]

Private industry has been necessary for open source development.

And few would deny this. Open source is not opposed to private industry or capitalism, Microsoft's protests notwithstanding. It's easy to see that open source benefits the economy; when a company saves money by using an open source solution, that money can be directed toward more economically efficient activities.

[avg_freeper]

I have liberally used open source software and have found it a great supplement to off the shelf software. (I would just sit cowering under my desk if I didn't have my vim or g77) I agree the case for it's benefit to private industry is obvious.

But I do see a problem for countries who decide to rely on a State sponsered software development. Has this sort of collectivist industry management worked anywhere else?

That there are thriving tech companies in countries like India and Taiwan is proof of the advantages of unfettered private industry.

[texlok]

If the answer is "Yes, so as to better facilitate a standard platform," why isn't Windows (which runs 90% of all desktop PCs) considered a standard?

Windows could be considered to be a standard, however many in industry don't want MS to be calling the shots (which is what would happen if Windows is "the" standard). The reason why? MS places security and stability behind profitability. Capitalism is great, but this is something where you want security and stability to be job one. MS took a month off of coding new stuff to go back and fix bugs a few months ago because of a series of security problems and the resultant public outcry.

If another answer is "Yes, because Linux is open source and more secure," why would something that is open be considered "secure." There are currently close to 4,000,000 lines of code in the Linux kernel that thousands of people have cobbled together over a period of ten years, yet there are NO back doors or security holes in Linux because it is so open?

Because you know exactly what is in there if you care to look, and Linux itself is just a kernel (and not nearly as big as you make it out to be) which is controlled by a semi-small group of people who are concerned with stability/security rather than profits.

It is not "cobbled" together like you make it sound.

When you install Linux along with associated packages, you have complete control over what you install.

99% of security problems are because of user error, unlike Windows, where it's because of a rush to get a product to market, and it tries to dumb everything down.

Bottom Line = A product driven by Security + Stability is better than a product driven by profitability and deadlines. Monetary considerations are very important as well, as you get more bang for your buck with Linux in intensive environments.

My company has been moving to Linux at a semi-rapid clip as of late. We got into Linux because we needed a cluster of computers. To do it with MS Windows would have cost literally hundreds of thousands of dollars more in licensing alone, not to mention time and new hardware. With Linux we saved a lot of money, and that money was better spent elsewhere. We've also achived a much higher uptime than similar clusters running Windows. We still use Windows on our desktops for some things, but our back-end, servers, and cluster are all Linux and it's been great not having any real downtime.

[texlok]

That spiffy new cluster IBM is building for the National Weather Service I believe is running Linux. Something that is that crucial to us, the government, the military, etc. would not be on Linux if Linux wasn't as good as it is.

[ThinkDifferent]

But I do see a problem for countries who decide to rely on a State sponsered software development. Has this sort of collectivist industry management worked anywhere else?

Agreed. Governments should use open source software where it can save them money, but I question the wisdom of them embarking on massive development projects.