Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

German Linux Migration White Paper Updated

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 8 years ago | from the true-path-to-enlightenment dept.

Announcements 122

TheRealDamion writes to let us know that the German Federal Government Co-Ordination and Advisory Agency (KBSt) has released an updated version of their Linux Migration guide whitepaper. This guide, originally released in 2003, is incredibly detailed offering assistance on a wide range of issues that could be faced in a migration from Windows to Linux.

cancel ×

122 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Frist goat! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13710953)

ha!

Re:Frist goat! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711071)

haha [impress.co.jp] lol
rolfcakes

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13710954)

fp

It's 3:00 AM (-1, Redundant)

mcrbids (148650) | more than 8 years ago | (#13710955)

Did I actually get the opportunity, after years of reading slashdork, of getting a first post?

BYE KARMA BYE!

Re:It's 3:00 AM (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13710962)

You got the opportunity, but you failed it.

Re:It's 3:00 AM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711094)

over here it's already 12:47, sorry ;)

Shhh (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13710958)

Don't mention the browser wars. I did once, but I think I got away with it.

Re:Shhh (1)

WesG (589258) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711418)

For some reason I read the headline as they are migrating from Linux to white paper.

And for a short period of time I actaully believed it and didn't think I had to re-read the headline.

SCUTTLEMONKEY - FIX THE ROBOTS ARTICLE (-1, Offtopic)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#13710970)

Please, its an article about teachers and education and plenty of people are moaning about it.

Re:SCUTTLEMONKEY - FIX THE ROBOTS ARTICLE (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13710988)

Why would a slashdot editor be reading the posts?

Re:SCUTTLEMONKEY - FIX THE ROBOTS ARTICLE (-1, Offtopic)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711074)

Dude, shut up. All the people are moaning deserve this sort of exposure. Let it ride, I say!

Re:SCUTTLEMONKEY - FIX THE ROBOTS ARTICLE (-1, Offtopic)

DrMrLordX (559371) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711078)

Bah, I'm laughing so hard that I can't even compose proper sentences.

bspear(2) (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13710976)

$ man bspear

bspear(2)

NAME
  bspear - an interface to the attacks with bamboo spear.

SYNOPSIS
  bspear [-d target] [-p powerlevel] [-K]

OPTIONS
  -d, --destination
      The candidate for an attack is specified.
      A name or a part number can be used as a target specification form.
      By default, bspear attacks 'localhost'.That is, suicide.

-p, --power
      The power degree for poking a bamboo spear.
      By default, 'max'.The Japanese military man is the best always.

-K, --KAMIKAZE
      It does not look back upon its life. That is, soul attack.
      It giving the damage of destructive to destination.
      But, the hard disk is destroyed...

EXAMPLES
bspear -d LEOPARD2 -p max --KAMIKAZE

Official migration guide (5, Insightful)

hernyo (770695) | more than 8 years ago | (#13710980)

That's quite an idea: releasing an official guide on why and how should companies switch to Linux. CEOs rather trust an government-released official guide rather than geek speech.

Re:Official migration guide (5, Insightful)

leonmergen (807379) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711028)

releasing an official guide on why and how should companies switch to Linux.

I find it quite remarkable how the "if" is always missing from these statements... couldn't this guide also be used as an indication whether it's even profitable for companies to switch to Linux ?

There are companies for which it's simply not financially advicable to switch to Linux, you know...

Re:Official migration guide (2, Funny)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711045)

Shhh! We know they exist, but we mustn't speak of them!

The zealots are watching. Always watching.

Re:Official migration guide (1)

halltk1983 (855209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712148)

I *Gentoo* am not a zea*Gentoo*lot. *Gentoo*I resen*Gentoo*t that *Gentoo* remark.

Re:Official migration guide (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711153)

There are companies for which it's simply not financially advicable to switch to Linux, you know...

Microsoft? Apple? And.......... (specifically)?

Re:Official migration guide (0)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711233)

SCO!

Re:Official migration guide (3, Insightful)

Trelane (16124) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712781)

I find it quite remarkable how the "if" is always missing from these statements... couldn't this guide also be used as an indication whether it's even profitable for companies to switch to Linux ?

And rightly so!

Maybe if you read it, it'll give you insight into whether you should switch some/all of your computers to Linux. However, the question of if you should migrate some/any software to Linux (or any other OS) is terribly situation-dependent and being argued constantly by pundits, armchair pundits, zealots, and paid shills every day. Indeed, reading such an article might well give you more information on whether you should switch than all of the TCO/ROI/WTF else studies together!

That is outside the scope of what these papers address. You're right that this doesn't (directly) address if one should or should not migrate to Linux. That's not what it's intended to address, as that question's already been settled for them.

IMHO, there is already too much arguing (mostly in generalities that make you feel good but don't actually inform, some downright misleading) by the above list of suspects about if and not how, so I think this comes exactly right--a paper on How We're Migrating to Linux.

Re:Official migration guide (2, Informative)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711286)

It's nothing new though.
IBM came out with Theirs [ibm.com] a while back too. The more the merrier I suppose.

No mention of GNU (1, Interesting)

ReformedExCon (897248) | more than 8 years ago | (#13710985)

They discuss the GPL at length in some of their whitepapers, but they don't seem to mention GNU or the FSF once.

I think it is quite a BAD sign when governments decide that the creators and maintainers of the GPL are not significant enough to mention in their documents. On top of that, they use the term "Linux" to describe the OS, and though they mention in pdf_datei.pdf that "Linux is only the core of the operating system", they go on "the non-core programs are parts of a so-called distribution". This is absolutely FALSE.

GNU is the operating system. It is the environment in which the Linux user lives. GNU tools are (if not the heart) the brain, lungs, arms, legs, and bladder of the GNU/Linux operating system. Without them, Linux is useless.

So, sure. Hooray that GNU/Linux is being promoted for use in Germany. However, this is a net loss for the Free Software community if the FSF and GNU are lost amid all the hoopla.

Re:No mention of GNU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13710989)

Who let the GNU freaks out of the closet?

Re:No mention of GNU (3, Insightful)

gowen (141411) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711053)

Furthermore, they discuss the Berne Convention on international copyright, without ever mentioning the bureaucrats who originally drafted it in 1886. Surely they deserver their props?

Re:No mention of GNU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711056)

I'm willing to be that with a little tweaking, a Linux kernel could boot a BSD userland... so useless without gnu ...

Re:No mention of GNU (1, Flamebait)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711182)

A GNU userland already does boot on two BSD kernels and one GNU kernel - although the GNU kernel doesn't have much hardware support. These systems look a lot more like a Linux distribution to the user than a Linux system with a BSD userland would.

And even if you are using a BSD userland, then you will still find some fairly major components (e.g the compiler collection) are GNU projects.

Re:No mention of GNU (2, Informative)

Vanders (110092) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711337)

A GNU userland already does boot on two BSD kernels and one GNU kernel

And one non-GNU, non-BSD kernel [syllable.org] .

Re:No mention of GNU (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711076)

Ultimately, the casual users (i.e. people who have no idea what a compiler does) will call it "Linux". Nobody will ever say "GNU/Linux" that matters. Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises. Linux could be a text editor that happens to get included with a specific distro and people would still call the system "Linux". If they install Red Hat, they will call it Linux; if they install Debian, they will call it Linux; if they install Ubuntu, SuSE, Mandrake, Linspire, or anything else, they'll still call it Linux.

This is the term that the public knows. Nothing else. Whining about it at this stage of the game is just pointless. If we'd called it GNU/Linux from the beginning, one of the names would have gotten dropped anyway (and it would have probably been GNU, since people tend to prefer "words" to largely meaningless acronyms).

The average user neither knows, nor cares about whether their software is free. They want whatever ultimately yields the highest productivity to price trade off. They will never compile a progam, will never change the source, and couldn't care less about what language, paradigm, or commenting conventions are used to create it.

Insisting on silly, minor points about naming conventions is going to do infinitely more to harm Linux, the FSF, GNU, and the computing world than somebody forgetting to give credit to GNU. Until the OS community stops and realizes that the people that they have to convince to switch platforms ARE the people who know nothing about computers, Microsoft (and other closed-source software companies) will prevail.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

cammoblammo (774120) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711138)

Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.

So Linus has started to accept patches from Redmond?

Re:No mention of GNU (2, Insightful)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711160)

Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.

So Linus has started to accept patches from Redmond?

So Redmond has started to send patches to Linus?

Note that if Redmond was sending worthwhile Linux patches, I'd expect the Linux community to very carefully check them, and making sure that there's an official statement from Redmond that those patches are indeed properly licensed to be inserted into Linux under the GPL (and maybe let a lawyer check possible other pitfalls), make sure that all this is perfectly well documented, and then, if all those checks show no possible harm, accept those patches.

Re:No mention of GNU (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711398)

Dude. You completely missed the joke.

Re:No mention of GNU (2, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711655)

Or, to sum it up, handle it as any other patch.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712198)

not exactly the kernel, but gaim accepted patch from microsoft :)

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5829512-2.html? tag=st.num [zdnet.com]

and search for patch.

now, a single case, and how much publicity has it gained already...

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

nickos (91443) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711255)

IIRC (and I may not!) I think there is at least one kernel contributor with an email address at microsoft.com

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

GuidoW (844172) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712182)

Straight out of the "CREDITS" file included with every copy of the source code:

N: Raymond Chen
E: raymondc@microsoft.com
D: Author of Configure script
S: 14509 NE 39th Street #1096
S: Bellevue, Washington 98007
S: USA

Re:No mention of GNU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711367)

Nobody cares what parts of the OS Linux actually compromises.

Obviously, some people care what part it comprises .

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 8 years ago | (#13715414)

The average user neither knows, nor cares about whether their software is free. They want whatever ultimately yields the highest productivity to price trade off.
The average manager might care about productivity but the average user cares more about whether he can set his favourite wallpaper.

I could add that the reason most managers don't care about the wallpaper is that they don't know it's possible to change it. But that would be harsh so I won't.

Re:No mention of GNU (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711121)

Oh would you please RELAX
You make it sound like there's some government conspiracy to hush the existence of GNU and the FSF.
They migrated to linux (yeah I don't use the gnu either) and wrote a 500 page document for you and anyone else who might be pondering a migration, and all you can do is beitch.

Write to them and suggest your inclusions for the 3rd edition.

Re:No mention of GNU (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711157)

A "net loss"? How can you be serious?
They offer a free document on how to migrate to Linux and that somehow is bad for OSS because they failed to mention some of your favorite acronyms? So according to you it's better to not inform citizens how to migrate but, as long as you call Linux "GNU/Linux"? Is that a "net gain"?

Re:No mention of GNU (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711183)

Stallman?! Get back to work!!

Re:No mention of GNU (5, Insightful)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711198)

That's not true. First of all, other parts of the system, such as X11, are of similar importance, yet noone (not RMS and his fanboys, that is) ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X" or so; similarly, most Solaris systems I've seen (for example) have the GNU tools installed, yet noone called it "GNU/Solaris". Also, the statement that you *need* the GNU tools is also wrong, as you can just as well replace them with something else, like busybox for example.

Sure, that's not typically done. But while it's true that most people don't give the GNU project enough credit, the right answer is not to give the GNU project *more* credit than it deserves.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711509)

If you rip out the X display system, you still have an OS. If you rip out glibc, bash, vim and EMACS, the GNU compiler, and all the other GNU tools, you have scattered bytes of programs left that you can't even compile with.

The GNU tools really are the guts of the operating system itself: Linus's kernel provided that last missing piece, the beachhead to unload the rest of the troops onto for the free source invasion.

you are full of shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711966)

if you rip out the X display system, you will be left with an OS that no-one except a few geeks want to use. GUIs are more friendly.

Bash,Vim and Emacs are tools from the 70's. Most users DON'T WANT to ever touch them. Most users are NOT programmers, and THEY DON'T WANT TO COMPILE A FUCKING THING. Why won't you linux freaks understand that. Fuck compile. I want to double click a program on a CD, go next next next and have it install.

Dickhead.

Re:you are full of shit (1)

ajs318 (655362) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712278)

What's wrong with single-clicking a program on a CD, and having it compile and install itself? That's entirely possible with GNU/Linux. And you have the benefit of knowing that it was cooked in your own oven; if it gives you the Dire Rear, you can analyse the traces of leftover ingredients to see what was responsible.

You missed the point (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712863)

if you rip out the X display system, you will be left with an OS that no-one except a few geeks want to use. GUIs are more friendly.

Without X, the system is less warm 'n fuzzy. Without GNU, the system doesn't work.

Which is the more important part of the OS?

Re:You missed the point (1)

IpalindromeI (515070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713125)

Without X the system would not work, in the view of the average computer user. To say that it's just "less warm 'n fuzzy" is like saying, "Without GNU, the system would still work, you just couldn't do anything with it other than boot." To an average user, those are the same.

Re:You missed the point (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713293)

Without X the system would not work, in the view of the average computer user.

Irrelevant.

The point is that without GNU the system would be non-funtional, period. There's a big difference between "I don't know how to use this system" and "This system doesn't even have a way to accept user input".

It's like the difference between an automobile with no automatic transmission, stereo or air conditioning vs one with no steering wheel, pedals or drivetrain. The analogy is imperfect because a significant percentage of drivers do know how to use a manual transmission, but you get the idea.

Re:You missed the point (1)

IpalindromeI (515070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13714450)

The point is that without GNU the system would be non-funtional, period.

You're right, that is the point. Without X, the system is nonfunctional for the average user.

There's a big difference between "I don't know how to use this system" and "This system doesn't even have a way to accept user input".

It's not a case of "I don't know how to use this system." It's a case of "This system can't do what I want it to do." That is the definition of nonfunctional.

Re:You missed the point (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13715416)

Repeating your argument doesn't make it any stronger. You could have at least tried to invalidate my analogy.

Re:You missed the point (0, Flamebait)

IpalindromeI (515070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13716605)

I apologize for being too subtle. I'll spell it out for you.

Computers don't look that great, so usually people want to use them to do things other than spice up a room. Many computer users are dumb or lazy, so whatever they want to do needs to be easy to figure out. Since people rely so much on sight, making things visual also tends to make them easier, which lets more dumb and lazy people figure out how to do them.

(Here's where it gets good.) Most people are too dumb and lazy to figure out how to do things without X, and some things can't even be done at all without it. If someone can't use the computer to do the things they want to do with it, the computer doesn't work for them. It's broken. Nonfunctional.

(Here's where I tie it back to the beginning of the argument.) Your claim was that, without X, the system is only "less warm 'n fuzzy," implying that it still works. In one sense you're right, in that someone knowledable could still use it for something. But most people aren't knowledgable, so for them it doesn't work. It doesn't accomplish its purpose of allowing them to do the things they want. Since that is a computer's only purpose, it doesn't work.

(One more try, from your angle.) I'm not trying to argue that the GNU parts aren't important (even though most can be replaced with non-GNU stuff). I'm saying that X is at least, if not more important, because that is the piece that actually lets the system become a desktop OS, which is what normal users need to make a computer work. Without X, Linux does not work for those people.

As to your analogy, it didn't refute my point, so I ignored it. Here's one that captures what I'm saying: It's like the difference between a car with only the bare essentials needed to make it move: an engine, a chassis, and tires, but without a body or seats. Sure it "runs," but who's going to drive it? No one. So effectively, it's worthless.

Re:You missed the point (1)

0ptix (649734) | more than 8 years ago | (#13716241)

thing is, it's not quite like a more "user friendly" car. the conversation started by talking about wether TFA was good for Linux's public image or not although it didnt mention GNU. we're talking about if the acronyme GNU is important when trying to win the masses over.

the problem with the analogy is that there are far FAR more people in the world who can drive without transmition (and even may choose the cheapest most bearbone version of a car) then there are "average people" who can use and want Linux without X.

so the market for Cars without X-friendliness is proportional to the total car market, is way bigger then the proportion of GNU/Linux to the GNU/Linux/X in the market of average people.

thus for cars its fine to have models with no X but the market is to small for Linux without X. I geuss if we dont bother with X then why bother with GNU.

both or neither. thats all i'm saying. (better neither IMHO. Linux is enough)

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712256)

i don't have vim and emacs installed. most workstations don't need gcc installed. few users want to know what bash is (though i use it a lot).

they are useful applications, but in this case most users would have to call their systems kde/x.org/gnu/linux.
and i am probably missing about a zillion other components.

Re:No mention of GNU (1, Insightful)

IpalindromeI (515070) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713038)

If you rip out the X display system, you still have an OS.

You have a server OS, but not a desktop OS, which is what the average person needs to use a computer.

If you rip out glibc,

I don't know enough about alternate libcs to say anything on this one.

bash,

Personally I like zsh better, but if you just want sh compatibility (for running system scripts), dash [apana.org.au] is smaller and faster than bash.

vim and EMACS,

Neither vi nor vim are GNU software. Regardless, there are many, many text editors that people like and are not GNU software, so I hardly think you can say GNU has the market cornered for text editing.

the GNU compiler,

Only developers care about compilers. A normal user probably doesn't need one. Thus, it does not make up a significant part of his OS.

and all the other GNU tools,

Most common system tools that I'm aware of have non-GNU variants available, as well.

I do not doubt that the GNU software was a great help in the early days, but an average computer user (ie, someone who doesn't read Slashdot) could get by fairly easily with most of his OS comprised of non-GNU software. I find your dismissal of the X Window System especially amusing, as that is probably the most important component of the OS in terms of allowing it to become a viable desktop OS. Do you actually think that an average user could happily use a computer without a graphical display at this point in time? It's an absurd statement.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

Gnuosphere (855098) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711700)

Slavemowgli said:
"yet noone (not RMS and his fanboys, that is) ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X""

Of course they don't call it "X". The dispute comes over what is considered to be an "operating system". X is a windowing system. Linus Torvalds has decided to use a computing scientist's viewpoint and propagate it as mainstream. Which is insane - but not if you want the world to believe they are using "Linux". Even Linus himself is caught in contradiction. He says the operating system that many of us use should be called "Linux" but then admits that a users never use an operating system - the users use programs which in turn use the operating system.

Linus's injection of the computer scientist's viewpoint into the mainstream world has served his interests and Open Source interests well. However, that trick has hurt the Free Software movement's philosophy. The trade off is the fact that OSS developers have contributed many programs to free software in exchange for obfuscation of the philosophy. But bottom line, to propagate the notion that an "operating system" is a kernel to anyone other than a fellow computer scientist is disingenuous. He's using that specialized angle to further his ego and downplay the socially charged topic of "freedom".

One should call the system "GNU/Linux" not for a sake of "credit". Richard Stallman doesn't want people to call it "GNU/Linux" so that people drool over his name. RMS wants people to call it this so they do not forget that freedom is what is at stake here. Linus wants people to call it "Linux" so he can stake out the spotlight for his ego. He has admitted many times he has an ego the size of the sun.

Torvalds should be thankful that Richard Stallman calls it Gnu+Linux. He needn't. The intent was to create a complete operating system called "the GNU system". The FSF had no intention of ever calling it "the GNU+Hurd system" or "GNU+anything system". They would only do so to differentiate between variants that may be created (i.e. Linux) - it just so happens to be the case.

Here's my opinion -

Screw the ego and history. Call it "Linux" if you don't feel freedom is important and you feel that RMS is just a freak extremist whose GPL can be used on occassion. On the other hand, call it GNU+Linux if you feel that the whole purpose of the GNU Project (i.e. to bring freedom to computer users) is an invaluable contribution to humanity with regards to computer technology AND you think that the kernel developer should be acknowledged even if his views don't mesh with the free software community.

I choose the latter.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712311)

if we had called it gnu/linux from the beginning, how manu users would have bothered to find out what gnu is, and how many of those would have bothered to find out more about philosphy behind it ?

that still would be more credit thing unless you believe that simply adding three letters would suddenly enlighten everybody who reads them.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712578)

Screw the ego and history. Call it "Linux" if you don't feel freedom is important and you feel that RMS is just a freak extremist whose GPL can be used on occassion. On the other hand, call it GNU+Linux if you feel that the whole purpose of the GNU Project (i.e. to bring freedom to computer users) is an invaluable contribution to humanity with regards to computer technology AND you think that the kernel developer should be acknowledged even if his views don't mesh with the free software community.

Strangly, i have heard the term gnu/linux so much i just though it was understood that linux was GNU. I guess thats the price of calling it GNU/linux instead of GNU on linux or linux with GNU. I just asked a friend and he said he considers it automatic too.

Arguing over names for somethign that basicaly stands for the same thing isn't verry productive. I understand that some must have thier name in the 15 minutes of fame spotlight. In this day and age, one simply implies the other. Maybe people don't have a good grasp on what linux or GNU actualy are and that grasp is were credit is suffering.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713705)

yet noone [sic] ever demand that the system be called "GNU/Linux/X"

Of course not. You can save a keystroke by calling it GNU/LinuX.

Re:No mention of GNU (4, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711208)

### GNU is the operating system. It is the environment in which the Linux user lives.

Sorry, but that is simply wrong. The environment in which Linux users live in these days is KDE, Gnome or Fluxbox or whatever, there might be a few 'command-line hippies' left that use a 'true' GNU environment, but for the majority the GNU stuff simply is a non-issue, an implementation detail hidden somewhere deep down below which you could switch to BSD Userland and hardly anybody would ever notice it. Even GCC is no longer maintained by GNU people and the C++ parts of it didn't origin from GNU either as far as I know. So calling the OS which people use GNU is equally wrong to calling it 'Linux', to make it correct you might wanna call it Linux/GNU/Xorg/KDE/Samba/Apache or simply call it by the name of the distribution as the paper suggested.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713034)

So calling the OS which people use GNU is equally wrong to calling it 'Linux', to make it correct you might wanna call it Linux/GNU/Xorg/KDE/Samba/Apache or simply call it by the name of the distribution as the paper suggested.

I disagree that "Linux" and "GNU/Linux" are equally wrong, or that "Apache/Samba/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux" is necessary to have a "correct" name. Why? Consider a very simple test: Take your "Apache/Samba/KDE/Xorg/GNU/Linux" system and try ripping out each of the named components. What happens? Remove Linux? The system won't boot. Remove GNU? The system boots but, with glibc gone, nothing runs. Remove Xorg? System runs and is useful, just without a pretty UI. Remove KDE? System runs and is useful and maybe even "pretty", but less user-friendly and with fewer apps. Samba? System runs, is pretty, has lots of apps, but can't share files with Windows machines. Apache? System runs, is pretty, lots of apps, shares files, but can't serve web pages.

So, if we envision a curve of functionality vs component set, I see a serious knee right at the GNU component. Sure, you could replace the GNU stuff with a BSD userland, in which case an appropriate name might be BSD/Linux.

Personally, I just call it Linux when talking to people who don't know the difference, and the distro name when talking to people who do, because it gets the point across. But I do not agree that calling an OS GNU/Linux necessarily implies that we should name all of the major components. Some components are more important than others, and the GNU stuff is clearly much more important than the rest of the list.

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713672)

I think you're making the point, but also the biggest argument for dropping it. GNU/ is implicit. It provides exactly no additional information over "I run Linux". Saying "I run KDE" or "I run KDE on Linux" is also far more informative.

As for the importance, all the major distros are trying to show off desktops today. For a desktop, XOrg or KDE is as important as the rest because the end user doesn't care where it halts - to him none of the above is a useful desktop.

Overall, I feel GNU is a really really minor part of my Linux experience, as in "what % to you contribute to the total". It is of course a completely absurd comparison of apples to fruit baskets, but if I were to try to list them in order, I'd probably list them as:

1. KDE
2. Debian
3. Linux
4. GNU

Re:No mention of GNU (1)

swillden (191260) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713894)

GNU/ is implicit. It provides exactly no additional information over "I run Linux".

I agree, actually. Until someone makes a BSD/Linux system, anyway.

Saying "I run KDE" or "I run KDE on Linux" is also far more informative.

Given that many people run KDE on *BSD systems, "I run KDE" is ambiguous. OTOH, the user experience of KDE on *BSD is nearly indistinguishable from KDE on Linux, so I guess it depends on what you're trying to communicate.

Overall, I feel GNU is a really really minor part of my Linux experience, as in "what % to you contribute to the total".

You don't use BASH?

Re:No mention of GNU (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13712556)

and actually they _do_ mention FSF in it.

Re:No mention of GNU (1, Flamebait)

Master of Transhuman (597628) | more than 8 years ago | (#13714176)


And without a kernel, the GNU tools are (mostly) useless.

And since GNU means GNU is Not Unix, and the whole point of the GNU project was to produce an OS - a COMPLETE OS WITH KERNEL - which they utterly failed to do over twenty years until some Finnish grad student did it (probably not even using their tools, for all I know)...

In other words, you've lost that battle, so fuck off.

Linux is Linux and the rest of the OS and distro is by whoever supplied it - including KDE, GNOME, and fifty thousand other tiny little people who don't particularly care if the OS is called Linux or KDE/Linux or GNOME/Linux, or tinylittleutility/Linux.

Only the GNU clowns want support.

If you NEED it, you don't deserve to get it.

Morons.

I for one (5, Funny)

Uukrul (835197) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711013)

I, for one, welcome our new german overl.... or may be not.

Last steps in the guide (1, Funny)

AnonymousYellowBelly (913452) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711025)

The last steps:

5. Call MS representative and shout: GO F$CK YOURSELF, you greedy son of a...!!
6. PROFIT!!!
7. Contribute money/resources to the OSS community.

Re:Last steps in the guide (1)

Ingolfke (515826) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712681)

8. Spend all quarterly profits + and additional 80% on FOSS software support contracts, overpriced arrogant consultants w/ a political agenda, added development staff, smelly GNU/Hippie sys admins to realize that the solution you implemented doesn't work effectively.
9. Call M$ and beg for forgiveness and the latest copy of Windowss 2003.

All kidding aside, Linux migration is not for every company or every situation. It's been said before and will be said again. Hopefully this guide will help companies make the right decisions so we hear more and more about successful and lasting migrations and not failures.

this is getting out of hand (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711046)

Linux, Linux everywhere, and, if that's not bad enough, now everyone's a geek. The word geek has been packaged and sold into the mainstream and everyone want's a piece of it.

The docu movies are soon to follow. Rumour has it that Micheal Moore's going to play RMS; and, RMS is going to direct. ESR plays a psychopath, mass murderer, coming out of the closet loaded down with firepower.

geek paradigm shift (1)

sounddesignz (866275) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711444)

suggestion: use the term geek for persons having no clue of computers at all. same with nerd. i mean, what world do they think we live in when they sit around in this nature thing all the time?

Linux Migration projects... (0)

TarrySingh (916400) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711059)

I see a lot of bloody wars coming up!Yeahaw!

Hallo, Mayer speaking.. (-1, Flamebait)

Crouty (912387) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711061)

".. yes, I did receive your Email...

No, I'm sorry, I did not read your abstract...

Well no, I am interested. It's just we don't have MS Office around here anymore...

Oh no, we actually do still work, it's just that we switched to another office suite...

Yes, there are, OpenOffice for example. Why don't you resend your abstract as PDF and I will have a look at it in a couple of...
- click -

Re:Hallo, Mayer speaking.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13712875)

...at my company we've got the following sig. on all outgoing mails and on our webpage :
"Please do not send MS Office documents. All MS Office documents are removed and trashed at the gateway."
Actually there is no MS Office filter... but we have an ecellent std. excuse for not responding to dumb mails...

Thorough but.... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711104)

I skimmed over it and it looked thorough enough but it didn't mention anything about ducking chairs? Did I miss that part?

Austrian Linux for download (4, Informative)

MadMoses (151207) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711112)

Meanwhile, Vienna has made their own Linux version Wienux [wien.gv.at] , which is based on Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 with kernel 2.6.11 and intended to be used in small and middle businesses and muncipalities, available for download [wien.gv.at] .

European Greens Linux "Linux für alle" (2, Informative)

bernfast (784409) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711175)

The european green party is also releasing a linux CD: Linux for all [gruene-mue...tadtrat.de] and www.gruene-opensource.net [gruene-opensource.net]

Re:European Greens Linux "Linux für alle" (1)

bernfast (784409) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711194)

The download is here [sol-linux.com] .

Spain has a lot of Official Distros (4, Interesting)

Uukrul (835197) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711205)

It's better to try to do the change like Germany is doing than to add another distro to the market. Spain has a lot of distros for every comunidad, but it lacks politic objectives.

Spanish oficial distros (From spanish Wikipedia):

Governments and OSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711142)

I am a big fan of governments actively supporting open source business software. Such an approach would be a big boost for productivity (better use of IT) and small business profits (less IT expenses). Perhaps more governments should seriously consider the investment, and even perhaps through more active approaches such as government funded projects (tailored to the country's complicated tax systems?)

Does anyone agree?

The Windows, The!!! (1, Funny)

InvisibleCola (780691) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711146)

The Windows, The!!!

Re:The Windows, The!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711209)

"No one who speaks German could be an evil man."

Re:The Windows, The!!! (-1, Offtopic)

BlueTrin (683373) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711419)

That is a reference to a Simpsons episode, where in front of a judge Krusty explains that he meant nothing harmful by "Die Bart, Die !!!" which means "The Bart, The !!!" in German.

Re:The Windows, The!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711584)

I believe it's Sideshow Bob that says that, not Krusty.

OS wars (2, Funny)

FishandChips (695645) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711166)

So I guess it's only a matter of time before some charmer like Orrin Hatch introduces a bill in Congress mandating the US government to publish a guide for those wishing to migrate from Linux to Windows.

Creator: (1, Funny)

Simonics Zsolt (711668) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711230)

Creator: Acrobat PDFMaker für Word Producer: Acrobat Distiller 7.0 (Windows)

Re:Creator: (2, Insightful)

rnbc (174939) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712431)

Yes, I already noticed this...

Considering the migration document is itself made in Windows, with Microsoft Word, I see nothing real happening in the next few years.

Re:Creator: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13714764)

Give the guys a break. The document was written at EDS, where OSS is only starting to make it inways. EDS is in bed with MS, as part of their Agile Alliance. MS Office is the standard for any documents produced there, OpenOffice is not used. (At least, not officially. :-) In fact, some of the chapters were written in OpenOffice and have been imported into Word later.

The usage of OpenOffice was discussed, but discarded since it would have been to much of a headache for the staff that made the final formatting. That was for the 1st edition, the 2nd edition just used available text and continued with that format.

Please note, I post anonymously since I've written one of the chapters. :-)

Chinese translation of the 1st edition available (4, Informative)

zero0w (572225) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711254)

The Chinese translation of the 1st edition of Migration Guide can be found here:

http://www.fect.com.tw/Docs/Migration.pdf [fect.com.tw]

The translation effort is sponsored by the FSOSS dEveloper Center @ Taiwan, aka FECT.

Re:Chinese translation of the 1st edition availabl (1)

ratbag (65209) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711902)

As a puerile fan of Father Ted, I feel I must snigger at the final acronym. Girls! Drink!

Nit-picking (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13711529)

This is the problem with the OSS community. A significant industrialized country, such as Germany (who is very influential within the EU), devotes time and money to give Linux a push and people stick to the details irrelevant to the big picture, at least from a corporal level (i.e. they call Linux Linux not GNU/Linux). Geek mentality (in the negative sense) and the assorted nit-picking can hamper Linux adoption. Grow up guys, this is definetely a good move and perhaps people should start translating and build upon thos document.

Does this make Germany ... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 8 years ago | (#13711678)

... home of the brave, land of the free?

Re:Does this make Germany ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13712006)

...they have been the "land of the free" for a long time...
where else in the world can you find a autobahn where you can drive 240 km/h ?

Re:Does this make Germany ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13712660)

... home of the brave, land of the free?

as in... beer?

this 1s 6oatsex (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13712115)

is perha44s [goat.cx]

Political developments since 1st edition (3, Informative)

FlorianMueller (801981) | more than 8 years ago | (#13712264)

The first edition of the Migration Guide took a strong pro-OSS position. The basic message, supported by endless columns of numbers, was that a full OSS migration would yield the greatest cost-savings to public administrations, but a partial OSS migration would yet be far better than none at all. Subsequently, that government department came under major lobbying pressure from the usual suspects.

German politics is in a period of major uncertainty now after elections in September had an outcome that gives neither of the two camps (Conservatives plus Liberals or Social Democrats plus Greens) a majority. The good news from an OSS perspective is that at least one of the two parties in the current coalition government (Social Democrats and/or Greens) will be part of the next government, and those parties are quite committed to open source even though the Social Democrats supported software patents in the EU Council (and some of them were relatively swpat-friendly in the European Parliament). There are a few German conservative politicians who also have a favorable perspective on OSS, but most of them don't care and some are downright negative about it. The liberals are ideologically pro-OSS, but of all German parties they're most susceptible to the influence of big-industry lobbying.

Not for company CEOs (3, Interesting)

12dec0de (26853) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713191)

A number of comments that came before mine mention company CEOs that are supposed to be swayed by this document. No such thing!

This paper is a goodsend (yes I knew about the earlier edition. Got one in hardcopy on my desk) for a lowly public sector employee like me.

Why? because evertime I want to install any OSS somebody in the commity that decides on these things will whip out a ProprietoryGlossyPamphlet(tm) and ask me 'what about...' (license, support, copyright, patents, etc.) and will not believe any word I say. So I whip out my "Leitfaden für die Migration von Basissoftwarekomponenten auf Server- und Arbeitsplatzsystemen" and tell them what a federal agency had to say on that matter and they usually shut up.

The answers on legal subjects are aimed at the public service sector. While probably true for a private company, it is not the target audience.

biggest barrier is ease of use. (1)

patmoore (628216) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713577)

Linux is a pain in the ass from an ease of use perspective. And I honestly wish that I could use Linux, but I don't want to be a system admin.

I want something that:

  • I turn on and it works.
  • When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.
  • works consistently across all distros.

I don't care about .rpm vs redhat vs whatever 'new, improved, way' of packaging programs to install there is. I don't care about journaling file systems. As a user why should I have to care? Isn't it the responsibility of the computer to keep track of such details?

Its not better for me as a user if I have to learn all about the differences. If I have to be a sys admin to get my document to print this is bad.

Unfortunately, the indifference to the user who does not want to RTFM permeates Linux (and to be fair most 'enterprise' commercial software) For examples of what I mean: Why I Hate the Apache Web Server [slashdot.org] and the whole discussion about Eric Raymonds rant about CUPS [slashdot.org]

For the 2 Linux developers who might care at all, you might read this book [amazon.com]

P.S I have worked on *nix off and on for almost 20 years, and I program in Java professionally.

P.P.S. And I would really love it if Microsoft's desktop market share < 50% but it will not happen until Linux developers decide that ease of use matters.

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13716319)

Windows is a pain in the ass from an ease of use perspective. And I honestly wish that I could use Windows, but I don't want to be a system admin.

I want something that:

  • I turn on and it works.
  • When I want to configure something, there is a GUI that is easily found.
  • works consistently across all versons.

I don't care about Windows Update, or downloading patches, or whatever 'new, improved, way' of packaging programs to install there is. As a user why should I have to care? Isn't it the responsibility of the computer to keep track of such details?

Its not better for me as a user if I have to learn all about the details. If I have to be a sys admin to keep spyware off my computer this is bad.

Re:biggest barrier is ease of use. (1)

patmoore (628216) | more than 8 years ago | (#13716385)

Thanks for proving my point about indifference.

My mother, my wife, and my kids' babysitter will all continue to be stuck with Windows until this indifference changes enough so that non-computer experts can use Linux.

Same technical lead as Duke Nukem Forever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13713640)

With that speed the migration is going to be completed the same day that Duke Nukem Forever are released.

Printed Version (1)

glamslam (535995) | more than 8 years ago | (#13713913)

Any idea how to get ahold of a bound and printed version of this?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>