|
|
| DiDio: Lack of Indemnification Impacts Total Cost of Ownership |
 |
|
Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:02 PM EST
|
Well. Finally. Laura DiDio says something that clarifies a subject remarkably. I believe she has just told us why the other side of the table sings the indemnification song: it's so they can claim that the total cost of ownership for Linux is actually higher than for Microsoft products. And they can sing it whether or not indemnification is in place, it seems. Ms. DiDio just did. Take a look at this article, which is all about governments around the world switching to OpenOffice, including the government of Israel recently, but then DiDio steps in with her pearls of wisdom.
"A couple of departments in Massachusetts state agencies have said they want to go open source too," Yankee Group analyst Laura Didio told internetnews.com. "With government organizations they have to tender within the confines of approved vendor lists for RFP's and they usually have to go with the lowest price so its not surprising that if you're just talking price that open source is going to have a great deal of appeal." Didio is quick to point out however that few organizations appear to look at the true total cost of ownership of open source solutions, specifically as it relates to indemnification (from the SCO Group lawsuit principally). She asserts that many governments need to have some sort of indemnification and that it's a large issue that needs to be recognized. Ah, the total cost of ownership. Who else has been singing that song, hmm? So that appears to be the game, folks. Can it be this simple? Bring a loathesome lawsuit and then claim Linux costs more because of legal perils from a lack of indemnification? I thought the game was to force it to happen, but I note she doesn't even mention the HP indemnification against SCO lawsuits or the Red Hat litigation fund, perhaps because neither costs you anything. How do they sleep at night? Even Ms. DiDio, however, is dimly starting to realize that there may be more to choosing Linux than price:
According to Didio, the price differential of open source solutions such as Openoffice.org is not the only reason why governments are making noise about open source. She believes that it's also about leverage and competition. "I think that the competition that open source has brought to the table has been good because it has forced Microsoft to respond and give its customers better terms and conditions and that's healthy", Didio said. "It gives customers more leverage."
In the case of governments, open standards may potentially be viewed as a necessary form of democratic pluralism themselves. "Should governments be using a format that is unique to a particular vendor to talk to its citizens?" noted Linux Guru and author of the Open Source Definition Bruce Perens asks. "The government should not be saying you can only drive up to a government office in a particular brand of car. In the same sense the government should not be saying you can only talk to your government if you have Microsoft Windows software on your computer." Somebody better mention Perens' thought to the government in the UK, from what I hear. A Groklaw reader in England is worrying that soon new regulations there will compel paying taxes online and to do it, as far as he can see, you will pretty much have to have a Windows computer. He writes:
The UK government is introducing "E-filing" for all employers tax returns - see www.ir.gov.uk/employers/onlineindex.htm It is optional at the moment but for large companies it will become compulsory and they won't be allowed to file paper ones from May 2005. The larger employers have to file monthly returns which will have to be online from May 2004 so in fact that is when it will effectively be compulsory.
There is a sort of sliding timescale for medium companies up to 249 employees it has to be by May 2006 and then all companies will have to file all returns online by 2008.
The difficulty with this is that to make filings, you have to have an account with the "Government Gateway". In order to have an account with the Government Gateway you have to use a security routine which has been implemented by Microsoft and which deviates from the specification previously published by the Government. The security routine "GGSec" only runs on Windows (and now they're withdrawing support from W98 etc as you reported) that means Windows XP. Here is what the government site has to say about using the "right" software:
Using the right software to do your online filingInland Revenue Quality Standard
You must make sure that the computer software you use to file online is capable of sending your data electronically, and that, from April 2005, it meets the Inland Revenue Quality Standard. This is a quality check on the useability of the information you send us. Software that meets our Quality Standard checks that you have the right entries, and that they are in the right boxes and all add up. Your software supplier will be able to tell you if your software meets the Quality Standard.
End of year returns filed online that do not meet the Quality Standard will be rejected by our computer (you will get an error message telling you why). You will need to put the error right before trying to file again. Otherwise your return will still get rejected and you will run the risk of missing the filing deadline. If you miss it, you may be charged a penalty. So the earlier you file online, the better.If you carry on using magnetic media until you start online filing, you will still need to meet the Quality Standard.
Inland Revenue Payroll Standard The Inland Revenue Payroll Standard is awarded to software that has passed our tests. It tells you that the software product you are choosing to do your online filing has all the essential features you need to calculate PAYE and National Insurance contributions due from your employees. Software products that meet the Payroll Standard are capable of sending data over the Internet, and contain much more than the initial checks that the Quality Standard meets. If software meets the Payroll Standard, it says so on the box. Or your software supplier will be able to tell you. See a list of software products that meet the Payroll Standard. From April 2004, software that meets the Payroll Standard will have been tested to make sure that it also meets the Inland Revenue Quality Standard. Here is a list of software that has been blessed to use. The Electronic Business Payroll Standards page is here. Their page for what they call their Electronic Payroll Accreditation Scheme (does "scheme" mean something different in the UK than in the US?) is here and says: An important stage of the evaluation process, is a check to establish if the payroll product is capable of exchanging electronically those forms that IR is able to support by Internet or Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) using Value Added Networks (VANS). This electronic exchange criteria supports the ongoing Inland Revenue Electronic Exchange Certification Scheme which has been designed to help software vendors develop electronic interface structures which meet the requirements needed by IR for sending PAYE forms by EDI.
The Payroll Standard requires the payroll product to have the capability to exchange electronically end of year data on forms P14 and P35 (although in the future the Payroll Standard may be extended to include other PAYE forms) and be capable of arranging for the payment of the amounts owing to the Collector of Taxes by electronic methods. Only payroll products that have had their internet submissions approved by IR or have the Electronic Exchange Certification for EDI submissions for P14 will meet the electronic exchange requirement of the Payroll Standard. If you click on the Scheme link above, there are some PDFs explaining their process for software developers. They have an email address to contact in one of the PDFs, help desk at ir-efile.gov.uk but when I tried to reach them, I was unable to do so. I have a Groklaw reader in UK trying to reach them and will let you know what I find out. Meanwhile, if any of you have more information, I would be interested to know if this is as it appears or if there is a workaround so that Linux users can pay their taxes without having to buy a different operating system they chose not to own in the first place. UPDATE: Dr. Stupid has already found this encouraging news: This link explains some of the background.
It's not pretty, but there is some light at the end of the tunnel:
Other browsers (running under Windows, Unix or Linux) can provide the required SSL connectivity but the ability to manage certificates on open source platforms needs investigating. The Office of the e-Envoy will be funding some activity by the open source community to address this issue.
The security model described above meets the design objectives and if alternatives are proposed they will also be considered.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:13 PM EST |
Indemnification? Is she still on *that*.
Can you imagine the SCO Group sending a letter to the Israelli government? (I
have this image of a building in Salt Lake City looking like that nuclear
reactor the Iraqis *almost* built in the eighties.)
Or Brazil? Oh yeah, they'll be quick to pay up. Yep. Sure thing. Right
after Carnival, or may be later.
TFL
When IBM wins its patent infringement case against the SCO Group, (and let's
face it, IBM doesn't lose that sort of case), who will indemnify McDonald's?
Will I have to pay a fee to IBM to eat a Big Mac(TM)?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:16 PM EST |
"I think that the competition that open source has brought to the table
has been good because it has forced Microsoft to respond and give its customers
better terms and conditions and that's healthy', Didio said. 'It gives
customers more leverage.'"
My response: OSS is good because it is GOOD all by itself!
Why is DiDio being this massive source of anti-OSS FUD? What does it gain
her?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ZeusLegion on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:17 PM EST |
"Scheme" has the same meaning but doesn't always have the
villainous connotation that many of us might associate with it. While we might
instantly think it means "crafty or insidious plot" it can also mean
"systematic plan" or "a plan for doing something".
---
Z[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:21 PM EST |
Yep,
and they could do it on a disk they send out (Knoppix or Gnoppix or Eagle Linux
CD). That boots and runs the reporting software! Very secure with very little
threat that a trojan is on the PC (say Windows PC).
The FOSS volunteers of the UK could do a distro just for them. Once it is done
then the users or tax payers would not be forced into the Microsoft upgrade
cycle.
By being forced to pay a Microsoft tax on top of the UK Gov tax then, isn't
that double taxation? Can anyone say BOSTON TEA PARTY?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:22 PM EST |
"The government should not be saying you can only drive up to a
government office in a particular brand of car. In the same sense the government
should not be saying you can only talk to your government if you have Microsoft
Windows software on your computer."
Unfortunately, that's
what's already happened. It's a MS-dominated world. You name it--gov websites,
university online courses, etc--and it (probably) requires IE to run. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:27 PM EST |
If my government adopts this kind of requirement (to have Windows) to file my
taxes, then I just won't file my taxes. I will claim that I refuse to use any
OS I can't compile, and if the IRS doesn't like it, they can sick their
collecter shepherds on me. That will just force me to take even more drastic
steps, such as money in the mattress. And if that fails, then I will call on
the lawyers to contest this as far as my pocket can afford. Do you see how
ridiculous this is?
I am amazed the British government, which was supposed to be modeling good civil
practices for the world, fell into such a stupid trap. It just goes to show how
sometimes government folks are totally out of touch.
I am off to Fry's to buy SuSE 9.x to reinforce my support for Linux, and to get
the latest/greatest tools for my new AMD Athlon. Windows XP will never touch my
CD-ROM drive - over my dead carcass!!![ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Taxes - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:31 PM EST
- Taxes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:55 PM EST
- Taxes - Authored by: LegalEaglet on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:25 PM EST
- Taxes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:09 PM EST
- Taxes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:56 PM EST
- UK employee online tax returns work in Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:59 PM EST
- Taxes - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 05:36 PM EST
- Taxes - Authored by: stend on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 01:41 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: DrStupid on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:28 PM EST |
| This link explains some of the
background:
http://www.govtalk.gov.uk/gateway_partnerlink/1__8.htm
It's
not pretty, but there is some light at the end of the tunnel:
"Other
browsers (running under Windows, Unix or Linux) can provide the required SSL
connectivity but the ability to manage certificates on open source platforms
needs investigating. The Office of the e-Envoy will be funding some activity
by the open source community to address this issue.
The security model
described above meets the design objectives and if alternatives are proposed
they will also be considered." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wynot Grokmore on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 02:45 PM EST |
In both British and American English, the word 'scheme' does not necessarily
imply an underhanded plot or intrigue. Primarily, and especially when
discussing software related topics, a scheme is simply a systematic arrangement
or plan. Even when used as a verb, to 'scheme' primarily means to develop a
scheme, with no suggestion of foul play. The connotation of underhandedness is
a secondary usage of 'scheme'. We ought not draw conclusions from the
straightforward use of 'scheme' to describe a software program or plan or
specification.
Of course, this post might reflect nothing so much as my failure to appreciate
PJ's sense of humor, but I just wanted to mention it.
Wynot[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bstadil on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:05 PM EST |
| All the little "Schemes" that is being put in from of the FOOS movement slows it
down a tad each time, but what the scheemer (second meaning) fail to comprehend
is that the snowball absorbs the barrier and gets bigger.
Once the SSL
issue has been resolved for the IRS in UK, it doesn not need to be done again
for any other gowernment agency. A reference to what was done would normally be
enough. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gvc on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:08 PM EST |
| Didio's and SCO's argument about indemnity belies that Microsoft provides
indemnity to Windows users. It does not.
Here is the text of the Windows XP Pro End User Licensing Agreement
Note the following passages:
"AS TO ANY DEFECTS DISCOVERED AFTER
THE
NINETY (90) DAY PERIOD, THERE IS NO
WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF ANY
KIND."
"YOUR EXCLUSIVE REMEDY. Microsoft's
and its suppliers' entire
liability and your exclusive
remedy shall be, at Microsoft's option from
time to time
exercised subject to applicable law, (a) return of the
price paid (if any) for the Product, or (b) repair or
replacement of the
Product"
"ALSO, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET
ENJOYMENT,
QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO
DESCRIPTION OR
NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH
REGARD TO THE PRODUCT."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:09 PM EST |
I don't understand the quoted text regarding indemnification. I just opened up
my copy of Word XP, went to the help file, opened the retail EULA, and found the
following sentence.
THERE IS NO WARRANTY OR CONDITION OF TITLE, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION,
CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION OR NON-INFRINGEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE SOFTWARE.
If Microsoft doesn't indemnify, why should the Linux world do so?
Chuck [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:11 PM EST |
i was thinking about this in terms of another story (Daniel Lyon's "End
if Free" prediction at Forbes). i think i get where these people are
coming from. it's not that unusual. basically, the world does not work the
way they understand, so they predict a return to things they do understand.
kinda egocentric.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PeteS on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:36 PM EST |
The number of pronouncements by Ms. Didio on this subject that are so far away
from fact makes me wonder (and I am not a conspiracy theorist) if she is
actually being paid under the table (or Yankee Group is) by either M$ or SCOX;
or perhaps they have a long position in one or the other; or perhaps some other
'strategic' relationship, as M$ so nicely puts it.
Either that or she completely refuses to recognize that SCOX doesn't even have
anything resembling a case, at least based on what they purport so far. I think
we've discussed that thoroughly here; and without a credible case, her latest
pronouncement makes her look less than stellar, to be polite about it.
I think the Yankee Group might be interested to know that they are fast losing
credibility in many *mainstream* companies; certainly a friend of mine who is
one of the IT infrastructure head honcho in a huge company now considers Yankee
Group to be grade D as a source of objective IT analysis. [He visited here after
talking to me - he was impressed]
Maybe a little research on the Yankee Group and Ms. Didio is in order. I don't
mean we should be less than open and professional, but anyone who makes public
pronouncements *that can directly influence economic and securities buy / sell
decisions* can expect to have their background verified to ensure no conflict of
interest and the veracity of their reports.
As my grandmother said 'If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen'
Probably take a few days, but maybe it should be done.
---
Artificial Intelligence is no match for natural stupidity[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:50 PM EST |
Still, she still is a babe, if you go for a full figured gal!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:56 PM EST |
oh my gosh,
do you mean that of the billions of dollars lost last year to virii, hackers,
and software bugs, can ALL be recovered because micro$oft/SCO/oracle etc all
indemnify their software products? Please Laura tell us simple folk how we can
recover all that lost money. Please tell me more about all of the refunds and $$
damages that are collected each year from the indeminfying companies.
ps: laura, software has no REAL indemnification of any kind /*it never has*/.
hardware does (hint its regulated for sale FCC etc.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 03:59 PM EST |
Thought people might like to discuss this, so I'm starting a thread here.
Bob Cringely has made a bunch of predictions
for 2004. Two, in particular, concern Linux:
5) The SCO debacle
has created a crisis within the Linux community. They pretend that it hasn't,
but it has. This will come to a head in 2004 with either the development of a
new organizational structure for Linux or the start of its demise. Linux has to
grow or die, and the direction it takes will be determined in 2004.
6) As
for SCO, they'll continue to make noise until the middle of the year, at which
point the legal case will implode and the company will give up. By that time,
the company executives, insiders, and major investors will have all sold their
positions at a handsome profit. This was never more than a stock scam, pushing
the price of SCO shares up by more than 15 times. The clever part is how they
used a legal case to make public claims that would have caused serious
regulatory problems in any other context. We'll see more of this ploy in the
future.
The latter I agree with, mostly. Not sure about the
timing or the executives likelihood of getting away with it, especially those
patent and Lanham act violations. What I think is interesting is to see it
stated so baldly at the website of PBS.
The former prediction, about Linux
adopting a new organizational model, will prove to be incorrect, I think. Not
that Bob's reasoning is bad, I just think that the concerns about it have
already been dealt with in the past year, with the kernel maintainers already
reviewing their procedures and structure, and deciding that it's working the way
it is.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bobn on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:15 PM EST |
You never hear these drones mention the very real judgement against MS in
Timeline Vs. Microsoft, which as I understand it (IANAL) actually found that
users performing certain cuscomizations of MS SQL software infringed on
Timeline's licensing, because MS didn't buy, and therefore couldn't grant
users the right to do that, event hough they maintained they had.
This would seem to be far more significant that the so-far imaginary
infringements that SCO alleges.
PJ, any chance of discussing and illuminating this case?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:15 PM EST |
DiDio has some kind of personal relationship with McBride and his fellow fools.
She has been putting out drivel on behalf of MS and SCO for months. This has
destroyed her own credibility as well as that of her employer (the Yankee
Group). Nobody with an IQ above room temperature believes anything she writes.
Yankee Group can be expected to dump her shortly after summary judgment is
entered against SCO.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: farfrael on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:18 PM EST |
Are all analysts corrupt or stupid ?
When you listen to Didio and Skiba (sp?, the guy from Deutsch Bank) it certainly
seems that way.
Is there absolutly no supervision ? What are their bosses thinking ?
I find the current situation really sad : these people spend their time spouting
some really obvious and easily demonstrated FUD and nobody seems to care ...SCOX
still at 17$ today ...
Is everybody in the financial industry THAT corrupt ?
One solution might be economic pressure.
A simple exemple is the fact that, as a direct consequence of their actions and
to the best of my capacity, i will not do any business with the Yankee group or
Deutsch Bank.
Regarding the government issue, the answer is simple : contact them and politely
remind them that they are civil servants (to the service of the citizens as the
name implies). If it fails, contact the closest elected official and remind him
that his attitude on this issue may/will cost him your vote.
To every personn of good will, happy new year 2004, may it bring you health,
hapiness and wealth.
To all these dishonnest people i can only whish you to lose your job in 2004.
Sorry, nothing really constructive, needed to rant ...
This rant presented to you by a student in a (well known) business school ;-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tyche on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:25 PM EST |
This quote by Louis Suarez-Potts, from the article PJ referenced:
"According to Openoffice.org's Suarez-Potts, it's not just a case of
kicking Microsoft in the shins, it's more a question of making file formats
that are freely available, more available to a country's citizens."
What he might have said is that it's a matter of non-proprietary standard file
formats. That way they couldn't be arbitrarily changed to be incompatable with
previous versions of the format.
Craig
(Tyche)
---
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of
knowledge."
Stephen Hawking[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: brenda banks on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:38 PM EST |
the best thing people can do is when your company wants yankee group refuse to
deal with her
name her and why you dont want to use her
it is time to speak up people and let others know tha tsome semblance of truth
has to be used
the bias reports cant continue to be swallowed
---
br3n[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sphealey on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:42 PM EST |
She asserts that many governments need to have some sort of
indemnification and that it's a large issue that needs to be
recognized Why would governments, national governments in
particular, require indemnification? Every national government I am aware of
reserves for itself the right to decide if it can be sued for civil damages, and
98% of the time the answer to that question is "no, you can't sue the Government
on that issue". So the point of indemnification would be what, exactly?sPh [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 04:44 PM EST |
Will you or the company you work for, indemnify the people who take a
decision (steering away from linux or open source software) because of your
statements (FUD actually), after it seems it was a wrong decision?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shoden on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 05:04 PM EST |
"'I think that the competition that open source has brought to the table
has been good because it has forced Microsoft to respond and give its customers
better terms and conditions and that's healthy', Didio said. 'It gives
customers more leverage.'"
Ummm. Where are these *better terms and conditions*?
---
S.K.
MR. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I have a smaller, obviously --[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 05:27 PM EST |
The Fidelity Investments web page is another example of a web page that will not
work with all operating systems. When I go to Fidelity.com, their web page
initially works but when I try to look of information about an individual fund
such as their FSAZX fund I get an error message that is shown in the link
below:
http://personal.fidelity.com/products/funds/mfl_frame.shtml?316448885
It does not even try to let me look at the fund information and instead displays
a message about recommended browsers. When I briefly used my old Windows
computer I did not have that problem. I was using the Mozilla Firebird browser
beta relese version 0.61 under Red Hat 9. I also tried using the Konquerer
browser and it had the same problem with the Fidelity.com web page.
It looks like I will not be buying any mutual funds from Fidelity since they
will not even let me look at information about their funds. However, I did find
an alternative way to get information about that Fidelity fund. I went to the
Vanguard web page instead which does work well with Linux. I used the feature of
the Vanguard web page that compares a Vanguard fund with another other comany's
similar fund. I was then able to compare both company's funds. According the
the Vanguard comparison tool most Vanguard funds are better. Since I can not
view the Fidelity web page with my Linux computer I will just have to rely on
what the Vanguard web page says is better.
Basically, I am complaining that Fidelity's web page only works with Windows
and Macintosh. I hope that kind of problem does not become more common.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 05:29 PM EST |
Posted yesterday (Jan 03):
2004
Most Clueless Analyst Award! ---
-----
For a few laughs, see
"Simon's Comic Online Source" at http://scosource.com/index.html [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: shoden on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 06:15 PM EST |
At first I thought DiDio was just so pro-Microsoft she couldn't think straight.
After thinking this over for a few minutes more and looking back at what
"analysis" she has come up with over the last year, I firmly believe
that she is a puppet.
Someone has to be paying her off for her to write what she writes. I can come to
no other conclusion. Why else would she be the one SCO wanted for a FUD machine.
The Yankeey Group has always been looked at as a Microsoft mouthpiece and the
timing between the licensing agreement between SCO and MS, followed by the
lawsuits, followed by DiDio becoming a UNIX expert, seems too obvious to me.
Of course I admit I have been wrong once before.
---
S.K.
MR. MCBRIDE: Your Honor, I have a smaller, obviously --[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: doughnuts_lover on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 06:16 PM EST |
Come on Laura. You were much better when you did this "House of Horrors" psychics thing. OK, Darl & Co also
claim to see things nobody else can see. And they too might be in need of a
ghost buster. And OK, you know Darl and gang now for 15 years. But do you
really think that the informed public will buy your story if you are repeating
it for a dozend times?
BTW1: The only ones who really might need
indemnification are those who are pumping SCO's stock price. Whether they do it
on purpose or on ignorance doesn't matter. Sooner or later The Game wll be over.
And you might be one of the clowns mentioned.
BTW2: A professional
group having lost lots of recognition so far in this case are analysts. Who will
be stupid enough to bet own money on recommendations coming from people like
you? Before relying on your opinion I would prefer visiting a palm reader. There
I can be sure that the guidance is unbiased.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 06:28 PM EST |
For once, DiDio is right: any company or government should perform a TCO (Total
Cost of Ownership) analysis as part of deciding whether to move to OSS.
Furthermore, the TCO analysis should include an analysis of indemnification for
both IP infringement and for consequential damages.
However, DiDio is totally wrong in asserting that such an analysis would favor
Microsoft. Each of these two (completely different) types of potential costs are
much higher for Microsoft products than they are for OSS. There are two
possibilities:
--- DiDio believes what she is saying (i.e., she's incompetent)
--- DiDio knows that what she is saying is wrong (i.e. she is dishonest.)
I personally do not believe that she is dishonest.
OK, now we look at the TCO analysis for IP violation, and the TCO analysis for
functionality.
OSS licenses explicitly disclaim any responsiblity for functionality. OSS
licenses do not in general disclaim responsibility for IP damages, but the
liklihood that that an OSS user could recover IP damages from an OSS developer
are effectively nil. Therefore, the best evaluation that a user can make is that
the user is liable for IP infringement when using OSS. However, A user has a
fairly high liklihood of defending against an IP claim based on
"promissory estoppel," since the code has been published.
Microsoft licenses explicitly disclaim responsibility for IP infringement. The
likihood that a user could recover IP damages from Microsoft is effectively nil.
If Microsoft has improperly (inadvertently or otherwise) included third-party IP
in a Microsoft product, there is little or no oppertunity for user to discover
this until the IP owner asserts rights to the IP. At this point the user becomes
liable. The relevant example is Timeline v. Microsoft.
If I were responsible for doing a TCO analysis of IP liabiliy, I would conclude
that use of a Microsoft product is more costly than use of an OSS product.
There is a simple way to check this: If I am a small but conservative company, I
would choose to avoid the uncertainty of an IP liability suit. I would therefore
insure myself against this liability. The cost of the insurance is a simple
straightforward number. The question becomes: what is the cost of third-party IP
insurance for Microsoft products, and for OSS software. My guess is that the
cost will be roughtly equal, but that it should objectivly be smaller for OSS.
Does Lloyds of London still exist as an insurance clearinghouse for novel
liabilities?
(Note that if I am a government agency, this liability does not arise, since I
can simply refuse to be sued.)
Functionality: If software fails to perform its desired function, the costs can
be very high. OSS and Microsoft both disclaim "suitabiluity for
purpose." As a user, I muat analyse the TCO for both. This basically comes
down to the speed at which a bug can be fixed. Any objective analysis will
determine that OSS is a LOT cheaper.
So, DiDio is correct: you must examine TCO. However her analysis(?!) reaches a
ludicrous conclusion. Any objective analysis must conclude that OSS is safer
than any propriatery software, specifically including Microsoft Software.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 06:42 PM EST |
This kind of FUD happens all the time, and it causes side effects.
I guess many of you have heard about the Munich decision pro open source. Did
you also hear about the decision of the local government in Frankfurt, Germany,
a city which is always near bankrupcy?
I live near that city (on it's edge, to be precise), so I know its major, Petra
Roth. She's the kind who would run for arguments like that, with her head
occupied in getting elected rather than using it to think. Some statements from
some o-so-nice MS guys, presumably of the same kind like those from Didio,
seemingly did the trick: Frankfurt has signed an exclusive contract with MS to
equip their PCs. Disgusting. I don't know Laura Didio or Mrs. Roth personally,
but I figure they're quite the same. Still, while Mrs. Roths decision seems to
be driven by mere foolishness or disinformation, I can't imagine why Laura
Didio doesn't get it... who pays her bills, actually?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nathan Hand on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 07:33 PM EST |
'I think that the competition that open source has brought to
the table has been good because it has forced Microsoft to respond and give its
customers better terms and conditions and that's healthy', Didio said. 'It gives
customers more leverage.'
This touches upon a sore point.
I agree with Laura that it's healthy that Microsoft is now offering better terms
and conditions to customers, but I disagree with the implication that this is
"healthy competition". There is nothing at all healthy about the x86 software
industry.
The problem is Microsoft. They have had no competition from
"normal" software companies in decades. Companies that try to compete on price,
quality, service, etc have failed miserably. Even large companies - eg, IBM -
have tried and failed to break the Microsoft stranglehold. These failures
weren't always because the competing products were inferior but often because
Microsoft plays dirty. If Microsoft wants a particular software niche then they
take it; you can see this scenario played out time and time again.
It
wasn't until Free Software that there was any decent alternative to Microsoft.
And here's my gripe. The only way to "compete" with Microsoft was by giving the
software away for free! How is that supposed to be "healthy competition"? It's
basically admitting that the Microsoft stranglehold is so strong that no
"normal" company can compete. Only with a completely unique strategy - give the
software away for free - was it possible to effect a change in the x86 software
market.
Let me explain this with an analogy. Imagine that every supermarket
is owned by a single company. All the prices are fixed and extremely expensive:
$1000s for a loaf of bread. There's no practical alternative for the average
consumer; competing supermarkets are quickly bankrupted or bought out by the
monopoly. There are fringe stores that the monopoly doesn't compete with - eg,
health food stores - but these niche categories attract very few customers.
Nothing improves until a soup kitchen starts offering free food to anybody
and everybody. Strangely enough, the food from the soup kitchen is better than
the supermarket food despite the $0 cost. People who appreciate food are
early-adopters and eagerly tell their friends about the benefits. Soon there are
millions of happy soup kitchen "customers". Some of the "customers" volunteer
their time to help cook and clean. Thus the soup kitchens expand until they are
a recognisable force against the monopoly of the supermarkets.
Did this
analogy demonstrate healthy competition? To me, it demonstrated that the
competitive market was so sick that you couldn't "compete" unless you gave your
product away. Is that how capitalism is supposed to work? Markets can become so
dominated by a single entity that the only way to produce a competing product is
by literally giving away billions of man-hours of work for free? That sounds
very unhealthy.
There have been too many x86 software companies that have
gone up against Microsoft and failed - Be, IBM, Digital, Novell, Netscape - and
I can't believe that Microsoft simply had superior products in every instance.
From experience I know that several of those companies had superior products to
Microsoft in several ways - price, quality, features, support - yet they still
failed in the marketplace. Is that healthy? I don't think so.
So I think
Linux is not healthy competition to Microsoft. Linux is most certainly
competition - and I think GNU/Linux will eventually succeed in replacing
Microsoft as the dominant x86 operating system - but the fact that Linux needed
to be free before it attracted interest is proof that the software industry is
very sick. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gdeinsta on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 07:40 PM EST |
The story about UK government online services working only with Microsoft
clients has been covered here and here.
The
newer of these stories is over two years old, so this has been going on a long
time.
From the 31 May 2001 article:
The Office of the
e-Envoy is hotly - but not very convincingly - disputing claims that the
Microsoft-built UK government portal, gateway.gov.uk, constitutes a Microsoft
tax. The authentication systems used for the portal, which is intended to form
the cornerstone of the Blair government's plan to get 100 per cent of its
services online by 2005, means that you need to be running a combination of IE
and Windows to be able to use all the services. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dentonj on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 07:45 PM EST |
| Indemnification can also be used by companies to protect themselves. Take a
look at the Microsoft Certified Professional Program Agreement that all MSP's
must agree to.
http:/
/www.microsoft.com/learning/mcpexams/policies/agreement.asp
* INDEMNIFICATION. You agree that Microsoft shall have no liability to
you or any of your clients or customers and that you shall defend, indemnify,
and hold Microsoft, its affiliate and subsidiary corporations and their
respective employees, officers and directors harmless for any and all demands,
claims, and/or liabilities (including but not limited to, personal injury or
product liability claims arising out of: (i) your use of the MCP Logos) and/or
the Microsoft Certified Professional Designations in a manner which is in any
way inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement; and/or, (ii) the performance,
promotion, sale, or distribution of your services as a Microsoft Certified
Professional; or (iii) Microsoft’s termination of this Agreement pursuant to the
terms herein. In the event Microsoft seeks indemnification from you under this
provision, Microsoft will promptly notify you in writing of the claim(s) brought
against Microsoft for which it seeks indemnification. Microsoft reserves the
right, at its option, to assume full control of the defense of such claim with
legal counsel of its choice. If it so undertakes, any settlement of such claim
requiring payment from you shall be subject to your prior written approval.
You shall reimburse Microsoft upon demand for any expenses reasonably
incurred by Microsoft in defending such a claim, including, without limitation,
attorney’s fees and costs, as well as any judgment on or settlement of the claim
in respect to which the foregoing relates.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 09:35 PM EST |
There is obviously an agenda on Dido's part. No one can be this far off. I'm
no big shot analyst but I can clearly see that linux/open source does offer
idemification.
Yes, you heard me, DOES OFFER
IDEMIFICATION!
What are we talking when we mean idemification?
Basically, a manufacturer will stand behind their product. Lets call this
'practical idemification'. This is all anyone would expect from
any company in the real world.
Why are we talking about idemification.
Because SCO threatens to sue linux users. Since linux is not the product of a
company, no idemfication. WRONG!
LINUX 'PRACTICAL'
IDEMIFICATION
present examples
1. IBM countersuit against
SCO.
2. RedHat suit against SCO.
3. Novell/Suse asserting THEIR ip
rights by copywriting.
future possibilities
1. Removal of any
infringing code by developers (free of charge).
2. Removal of any infringing
code by YOURSELF.
I run linux at work. Presently, I've been recieving
idemification from IBM, RedHat, Novell. We don't even own any IBM, nor RedHat,
nor Novell products. Man.. what a deal Laura.
In the end, worse case,
I can personally remove any code which is infringing from my Linux,
without even calling Linus.
Now, if my Windows boxes have bad
code...... We'll, I'll wait for Laura to tell me how that would work out.
Dido, put down the bon bons, get off the couch and actually do some research.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RSC on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 10:13 PM EST |
I think I would ask the IRS/Taxation dept. To supply me with the tools required
to lodge my tax return, or take the return in any form I give it to them (within
reason of course).
If I do not have the "standard software" they require for lodging,
(in this case I would not), then it is up to *them* to supply me with the
hardware (since I do not want MS on mine) and the software I need. Simple as
that.
If they don't like that solution, then they would have to change the
"standard sofware" to enable all people to lodge.
Time and time again, Govts of all varieties have tried this type of stupidity,
and each time, they have been forced to "adjust" there procedures to
cover the people who could or would not comply, usually at a major cost.
I think once again a Govt. has fall into a bad choice because of a slick sales
rep.
Just remember, it's *you*, the tax payer who ends up paying for all this crap.
Enjoy....
RSC
---
----
An Australian who IS interested.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bclemmen on Saturday, January 03 2004 @ 11:45 PM EST |
| She asserts that many governments need to have some sort of indemnification
and that it's a large issue that needs to be recognized
I notice that
Ms. Didio offers no rationale for this assertion. At least with regards to
potential IP issues and State governments in the United States, there clearly is
no such rationale: see the 6/23/1999 Supreme Court decision FLORIDA PREPAID
POSTSECONDARY ED. EXPENSE BD. v. COLLEGE SAVINGS BANK
(98-531) (College
Savings Bank II).
IANAL, but I found a statement from a
lawyer that says that this opinion leaves virtually no way for Congress to make
states susceptible to suits for patent or copyright infringement.
So,
indemnification for what? SCO certainly talks about indemnification for IP
problems, and Ms. Didio has backed them up on this issue. But for State
governments? Of course, maybe she doesn't subscribe to PATNEWS (which is
where I first heard about this case). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 12:11 AM EST |
For some reason which I don't really get, Didio and her ilk keep
ignoring the
fact that with the current Microsoft model, achieving REAL
ownership of your own
data (which is what REALLY counts for businesses)
is probably impossible at any
cost. Both the lack of open standards and
Microsoft's "activation" schemes tend
to mean that a Microsoft customer
over time can get continued access to his/her
own data only to the
extent that Microsoft choses to allow it. Changed your
hardware, you
say? Sorry, only Microsoft can re-"activate" your
software.
When access to one's data is gated by secret knowldege about
the
format of the data which is held only in Redmond, and by programs
which
disable themselves from time to time until the emerging masters
of
extortion in Redmond have been paid, it seems to me that it is pretty
darn
hard to know what the costs of maintaining access to one's data
will be over
time, when a dependency on Microsoft is involved.
Add to that the fact
that if you have Win XP or Win 2K SP3, you have
agreed to an MS license that can
be retroactively changed by Microsoft
as they see fit, and which allows
Microsoft to remotely disable your
machine (and your hence access to your data)
as they see fit. And Didio
want's to tell us that indemnification is THE risk
that we need
concerned about.
Dr Edgar David
Villaneuva
Nunez's open letter to Microsoft remains a classic
exposition of the the
costs/risks of doing business with Microsoft, and
can be found
here,
for example
("The letter provides the most thoughtful and thorough
rebuttal we've ever seen
to Microsoft's standard open-source terror
boilerplate."). I recommend this if
you haven't seen it.
WB
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 11:24 AM EST |
PJ, I think you're being a bit unfair to DiDio here. I've
followed some of the things she's been saying for the
last several months, and I think she's generally pretty
off base. However, we don't really know what it is she
said to the reporter, we only know what she was
*quoted* as saying. It's the reporter's job to bring up
the issues about the HP indemnifications and the Red
Hat fund. DiDio might even have said something about
them.
Besides, who really cares what she says anyway? In
the end, it is her credibility that is on the line. When the
SCO case collapses, it will be DiDio who will be
saddled with it for the rest of her career.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 12:11 PM EST |
I think msft owns a big chunk of silver lake partners, which in turns owns big
chunks of gartner group, and yankee group. Enderl's consulting company also
does work for msft. Didio is also a long time friend of scox execs.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 07:12 PM EST |
On UK government, Gateway etc.
First off - the Office of the e-Envoy is a unit in the
Cabinet Office. Cabinet Office has two main roles -
secretariats for Ministerial committees, (a Cabinet style
of government, hence Cabinet Office...) and the centre of
change within the Civil Service - largely through the
development of initiatives designed to influence government
departments. Units within thr Cabinet Office are created
to do this. However, History does not provide evidence for
the longevity of these units.
Recent official announcements suggest that the OeE is
destined for the usual fate. All these units tend to "get
high on their own supply" and promote their omnipotence and
omniscience - meanwhile life goes on...
The Office of Government Commerce has just commenced ten
pilots across government deploying Open Source. Back
issues of "The Register" should give you a full story.
The biggest user of software in UK public sector is the
National Health Service. If you look hard enough, you will
see some interesting developments including a White Paper:
Open Source and the NHS (January 2002 - www.nhsia.nhs.uk)
I believe that there was also some talk about looking at
500,000 open source desktops in NHS.
Doesn't solve the problem of a non-standard implementation
of certificates on the gateway, but (a) the OeE is unlikely
to be the place that does anything about it (b) it doesn't
mean that nothing is going to happen (c) unfortunately
holding your breath, probably, isn't a good idea.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 08:01 PM EST |
Another article on Didio... I wonder if Lyons is here trolling for folks who
make crude references to her name? I still can't believe he got that one
article, which everyone seemed to (wisely) ignore around here wherein he seemed
to report nothing but a few troll posts on random message boards, and finally
read more about Groklaw (wow, the iBiblio project has funding from IBM, which
hosts Groklaw; even though Groklaw wasn't started on iBiblio, and is listed on
every page as a sponsor).
I wonder if Lyons will ever graduate to actual journalism? If he continues any
further, he'll be releasing articles that say "Sky Discovered to be
Blue" next... It's decidedly NOT ironic that the original problem we had
with him was his failure to do research... oh well. It's the fact that he got
that past his editor at Forbes that bothers me. Guess it goes to show who you
can trust in terms of journalistic integrity, huh? Pretty sad, though.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Sunday, January 04 2004 @ 09:17 PM EST |
Is this the same Laura DiDio who stated (regarding the
"infringing code" that she allegedly saw under NDA)
"the
trademark and patent people are going to have a field day with
this."
Gee, Ms. DiDio... SCO doesn't own the UNIX trademark,
they don't hold any patents on UNIX code, and --- oh, yeah --- wasn't this case
about contract breach in the first place??
I think the XML guys might
describe her with a <credibility/> tag.
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 02:29 PM EST |
"Didio is quick to point out however that few organizations
appear to look at the true total cost of ownership of open source solutions,
specifically as it relates to indemnification (from the SCO Group lawsuit
principally). She asserts that many governments need to have some sort of
indemnification and that it's a large issue that needs to be
recognized."
I see a few interesting points about this quote.
First of all, she talks about indemnification for OSS, but identifies the
SCO lawsuit principally. That lawsuit is regarding Linux in particular. Open
source, especially the OpenOffice soltuion, is mentioned in the article as
software that the government wanted to use. OpenOffice is an FOSS, but is not
party to the SCO case in any way. She's either deliberately confusing the issue
bewteen OSS and Linux, or mistakenly thinking that Linux is the only OSS that is
worth talking about. For example, what if the government implemented a BSD and
use OpenOffice on top of that? I picture having her here in front of me to ask
her what she meant, considering these points, and I envision her answering that
she is talking about the general IP issues regarding OSS that the case
illustrates. I'm glad that she mentioned the case in particular, though. Anyone
that hangs their arguments on those hooks will find those arguments on the floor
when the SCO case is finally decided. I actually very much want all of the
opponents of OSS to focus on the case. It's a losing cause.
Secondly, as
discussed in detail on Groklaw and on many other forums, the indemnification
offered by most vendors, including Microsoft, is inadequate. Often, the it
covers only the purchase price of the software only, or a small amount of money
such as $50. Naturally, most cases would settle for quite a bit more than
that. A person like Didio might say that the chances for exposure of IP
violations are higher in open software than a proprietary solution, and thus the
risk is greater for OSS. But in reply, OSS is in fact modifyable. If there is a
violation found, it can be expurgated (with the assumption that it is not built
upon patented, key technology that cannot be removed). A user of a proprietary
solutions might not have that option, and might have to pay up.
Because of
the state of indemnification in the industry today, this is a red herring
argument. I hope there is a focus on the topic in general, so that it can be
exposed for what the cost truly is. I am very much for a TCO analysis. But one
that is based on real data. I have a feeling that if it were looked at in sharp
contrast, they would decide that it's not a large factor. And in fact, is not
worth factoring at all when one looks at proprietary indemnification in
comparison. And I hope that they keep using the SCO case as the reason tech
decision makers should be concerned about OSS. SCO's case is so very weak, and
if SCO loses decisively, their arguments will also fall away as well. I would
not want to stake any argument about an external factor such as a lawsuit.
Especially one that is looking weaker each time SCO files anything in the
courts. Either they are not thinking clearly about this, or there really are no
other good weaknesses for them to exploit. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dulci on Monday, January 05 2004 @ 10:06 PM EST |
If public online-services for tax-forms etc. requires Windows wouldn't that be
discrimination, technological discrimination?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
