The European Union has long promoted open source software, but it seems that years of expensive lobbying by big software companies has finally worn down the bureaucrats' resistance. The latest version of the European Interoperability Framework - which aims to offer governments and businesses guidance on using open source …
Did anyone else see the irony in having an MS Exchange Server whitepaper ad at the bottom of that article?
Why do lobbysists do such things?
...so that their clients can show a few lines on a PowerPoint slide under an NDA and still be able to say they are "Open Source"?
I know Microsoft have to do what they can to protect their bottom line but good lord do I hate them anyway.
That one company has done more to damage the peoples of the world than any other I've known.
They are even worse than Monsanto.
You can't spell "interoperability" without "inter"
How can a homogenised ICT system be in any way considered to be achieving interoperability? There's no "inter" if there's only one kind of system!
Of course, those responsible for technology in businesses are all clueless and unable to spot an opportunity to save money unless their hands are forced by someone who's never done a day's work in their lives and can't turn on a PC without the help of three assistants. Almost all large businesses use *some* open source systems where this can deliver cost savings - e.g. web servers. Very few have large-scale desktop implementations.
Is it perhaps possible that there's a real-world justification for this? In today's straitened economic circumstances it's unlikely to be based on a mindless desire to swell Microsoft's coffers.
Europe is a joke
As we'll have a "President" soon anyway. What a bunch of hopeless wankers. Wish I could get my coat and leave.
Commercially 'owned' open source
Could this be something to do with commercial companies creating and running open source projects, such as what Nokia has done to Symbian or Yahoo and its server? And I'm sure Microsoft will be releasing plenty of open source projects they have lying in the R&D bin over the next few years. It'll look good on their CV!
This shows the weakness of a focus just on 'Open Source'. I know the concept of Software Libre (Free software) is more complex than 'Open Source', however, it is the 'freedom' aspect of Software Libre, Free Software, which is important. As Microsoft is showing, Open Source may not necessarily mean 'freedom'.
The GNU GPL is pretty good at enshrining ' freedom'. I am not even sure it mentions open source though.
@ Goat Jam
While I agree with the general idea, especially after the ISO fiasco, let's keep things in perspective here.
The New Orleans dyke-maintenance budget slashers?
The companies having benefited from Auschwitz?
All the companies selling landmines?
And Monsanto indeed.
MS is merely an annoyance on that scale.