With the help of Google translate and my infinite wisdom I translated the statement of IT@M, the IT service company owned by the city of Munich. DISCLAIMER: This NOT an official translation. This is my personal translation. The original text in german is linked from here.

I published (with permission) the original statement here.

HP study produced on behalf of Microsoft on the LiMux migration

(01/22/2013) Under the intriguing title “[Mayor of Munich] Ude has wasted millions on Linux machine?” Focus Money Online reported on a study that HP made on behalf of Microsoft. The study allegedly proves that the city didn’t save in the tens of millions Euro by switching to OpenOffice and LiMux, but actually paid far more.

Karl-Heinz Schneider, head of the municipal IT service IT@M:”Of course we want to deal with this criticism. I have asked Microsoft to share the study with us. What I could gather so far from press articles however raises a considerable amount of doubt on the validity of the study and its findings.” The study does not take into account the licensing costs that would be incurred for using Microsoft products. Schneider: “This simply drops seven million into the void – which is quite the biggest saving we had.”

The claim that no new versions of Windows and its application would have been needed is simply not true. Schneider: “A major trigger for the decision to put our operating system architecture to the test was precisely the announcement by Microsoft to drop support for Windows NT – the operating system that was used as a standard at the city of Munich at that time. A migration to a new operating system was therefore inevitable. ”

The claim that the city would have compared the cost of a current Windows 7 with a ten year old version of Linux is also simply wrong. Schneider: “Of course we have been gradually optimizing LiMux over time. The current version is far away from the original version and can stand a comparison with Windows 7.”

The study also falsely claims that one in four city computers still run on Windows as none of the specialized procedures can be migrated to Linux. Schneider: “It is true that not all business applications can be migrated to Linux. But that is ‘not all’ and not ‘none’. All web-based business applications can be used without any migration costs under LiMux and most of the procedures that are tightly integrated with Microsoft can be accessed with standard technologies that are also used by the Linux client.

Finally the number of remaining Windows machines in Munich that the study claims is too high. Instead of the claimed 75 percent, we have already moved 13,000 of the planned 15,000 machines to LiMux – that’s almost 87 percent. ”

Original german version published in the 2013-01-22 edition of Rathaus Umschau – Page 8 and 9

With the help of Google translate and my infinite wisdom I translated the statement of IT@M, the IT service company owned by the city of Munich. DISCLAIMER: This NOT an...

[UPDATE: My english translation of the statement now here]

Reproducing the statement of IT@M – with permission from the press office of the city of Munich.

IT@M in eigener Sache

HP-Studie untersucht im Auftrag von Microsoft LiMux-Umstellung

(22.1.2013) Unter dem reißerischen Titel „Hat Ude Millionen für Linux-Rechner verschleudert?“ berichtet Focus Money online über eine Studie, die HP im Auftrag von Microsoft angefertigt haben soll. Die Studie belege angeblich, dass die Stadt durch die Umstellung auf LiMux und OpenOffice keinen zweistelligen Millionenbetrag gespart, sondern sogar draufgezahlt hätte.

Dazu erklärt Karl-Heinz Schneider, Chef des städtischen IT-Dienstleisters IT@M: „Selbstverständlich werden wir uns mit dieser Kritik gerne auseinandersetzen. Ich habe deshalb Microsoft sofort aufgefordert, uns diese Studie zur Verfügung zu stellen. Was ich bislang der Presse entnehmen konnte, wirft allerdings erhebliche Zweifel an der Aussagekraft der Studie auf.“ So lasse die Studie die Lizenzkosten, die beim Einsatz von Microsoft-Produkten angefallen wären, von vorneherein unberücksichtigt. Schneider: „Damit lässt die Studie den Löwenanteil der Einsparung in Höhe von fast sieben Millionen Euro einfach unter den Tisch fallen.“

Auch die Behauptung, beim Verbleib auf der Windows-Schiene wären überhaupt keine neuen Versionen erforderlich gewesen, trifft nicht zu. Schneider: „Ein wesentlicher Auslöser für die Entscheidung, die BetriebssystemArchitektur auf den Prüfstand zu stellen, war ja gerade die Ankündigung von Microsoft, den Support für das damals als Standard bei der Stadt eingesetzte Windows-NT-Betriebssystem einzustellen. Eine Migration auf ein neues Betriebssystem war also unvermeidlich.“

Unzutreffend ist auch die Behauptung, die Stadt hätte die Kosten einer aktuellen Windows-7- mit einer zehn Jahre alten Linux-Version verglichen. Schneider: „Selbstverständlich ist der LiMux-Client sukzessive optimiert worden. Die aktuelle Version ist mit dem ursprünglichen Client zu Projektstart nicht mehr zu vergleichen und braucht einen Vergleich mit Windows 7 nicht zu scheuen.“

Falsch ist darüber hinaus die Darstellung der Studiie, jeder vierte StadtRechner laufe noch auf Windows-Basis, da „alle Fachverfahren nicht auf Linux migrierbar“ seien. Schneider: „Richtig ist, dass nicht alle Fachverfahren auf Linux umgestellt werden können. Da wurde offensichtlich aus einem „nicht alle“ ein „alle nicht“ gemacht. Alle web-basierten Fachverfahren können ohne Umstellungsaufwand unter LiMux genutzt werden und die meisten Verfahren, die eng mit Microsoft integriert sind, können über andere Standardtechniken ebenfalls vom Linux-Client aus benutzt werden.

Auch die Zahl der verbleibenden städtischen Windows-Rechner ist zu hoch gegriffen. Statt der in der Studie behaupteten 75 Prozent haben wir bereits jetzt 13.000 der geplanten 15.000 Arbeitsplätze auf LiMux umgestellt – das sind knapp 87 Prozent.“

Source: Rathaus Umschau, 2013-01-22 – Page 8 and 9

[UPDATE: My english translation of the statement now here] Reproducing the statement of IT@M – with permission from the press office of the city of Munich. IT@M in eigener Sache...

Der Vorschlag wurde mir geleakt von einem befreundetem DevOps in einem ungenannten Verlag.

# robots.txt zu http://www.bild.de/

User-agent: Google-Crawler*
Pay: /* {PayPal:SpingerVerlagLSR@bild.de:0.05€/click}
Free: /404.html
Free: /500.html
Pay: /erotik* {PayPal:SpingerVerlagLSR@bild.de:2.50€/click}

Es wird bereits über erweiterte Sytax diskutiert. Unter anderem ein Promo: mit Datumsangaben für Freicrawlertage.

Ach ja, wer Sarkasmus und Ironie findet darf es behalten.

Der Vorschlag wurde mir geleakt von einem befreundetem DevOps in einem ungenannten Verlag. # robots.txt zu http://www.bild.de/ User-agent: Google-Crawler* Pay: /* {PayPal:SpingerVerlagLSR@bild.de:0.05€/click} Free: /404.html Free: /500.html Pay: /erotik* {PayPal:SpingerVerlagLSR@bild.de:2.50€/click} Es...

Basic Patent Knowledge #0: The patent system has a long history. It’s fundamental task is to incentivize sharing of knowledge. Not protection of the innovator as many people assume. It is a deal with society. In exchange for full disclosure of your invention, you get a limited monopoly (20 years typically) to exploit your invention commercially. After the 20 years your knowledge enters the public domain.

Basic Patent Knowledge #1: A patent does NOT protect the innovator. It protects the one that filed the patent. It’s called the first-to-file doctrine and is used almost everywhere on this planet now.

Basic Patent Knowledge #2: A patent is a regional right. Typically limited by country borders. So to patent something globally you need to file a lot of patents at a lot patent offices in a lot of countries. That can become quite expensive.

Basic Patent Knowledge #3: A patent is presumed to be valid without a doubt. Even if you can prove that the patented thing existed before the patent was filed (in US 12 monthe before it was filed) you still need to go for an all-out invalidation process to overcome the presumed validity. This can take a long time and again is very expensive.

Basic Patent Knowledge #4: In some jusridictions (Europe as an example) the non-commercial use of patented technology is perfectly OK. Only infringement on a commercial scale causes damage.

Basic patent knowledge #5: A patent is an exclusive right. There is no rule that you must license it to others. There’s also no rule that you actually must produce something that uses the patented technology. Thus you can file a patent, sue anyone that infringes and refuse to license it at all.

Basic Patent Knowledge #0: The patent system has a long history. It’s fundamental task is to incentivize sharing of knowledge. Not protection of the innovator as many people assume. It...

As one of my hobbies is 3D printing, I have built an eMaker Huxley 3D printer last year. It is fun, teaches me a lot and I try to keep the setup up2date. So recently I upgraded the Sanguinololu to use a 1284P CPU and put Marlin on it. I added a LCD Display and a rotary encoder so it now runs completely standalone.

To create the files to print, you need to slcie/skein 3D models to GCODE. I started with Skeinforge for that but have switched to Slic3r recently.

I am a big fan of Slic3r and like to keep up with the latest devlopments. So I typically build it myself. In order to do that, you need to have quite some requirements satisfied. Here the short form for building Slic3r on Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6, 64bit – the OS on my current laptop:

First some RPM packages that are needed:

sudo yum install git wxBase wxGTK wxGTK-devel wxGTK-gl dbus-devel expat-devel cpan

As Slic3r is a perl program, we need quite some CPAN stuff:

sudo cpan Boost::Geometry::Utils Math::Clipper Math::ConvexHull Math::Geometry::Voronoi Math::PlanePath parent Moo Module::Build::WithXSpp dbus-1 XML::Twig

Now let’s fetch Slic3r:

git clone https://github.com/alexrj/Slic3r.git

And now we should be able to build Slic3r:

perl Build.PL

Future updates should be a simple

git pull; perl Build.PL

Time to slice some files from thingiverse.com!

As one of my hobbies is 3D printing, I have built an eMaker Huxley 3D printer last year. It is fun, teaches me a lot and I try to keep...

A candidate plan for a decentralized, distributed network that can complement and eventually replace a lot of proprietary stuff we use nowadays.

This is a braindump. I am hoping to find people that understand what I am talking about and are willing to get this started and participate in the discussion and implementation. Will offer beer and pizza in Munich.

My weird plan is called (since 5 minutes TNP/IP – The Transnational Protocol running on the Internet.

The short form:

• Everything is pure JavaScript
• Everything is Free Software, AGPLv3
• It is modular
• It is liberal in both input and output.

It can run on a raspberry pi or similar cheap hardware. It implements the needed standards (TBD, but for sure Jabber, SMTP, IMAP, Statusnet and RemoteStorage AKA unhosted)

Rationale: Using a single language approach we can avoid the need for expensive hardware requirements. Speed is not the big problem, freedom is.

By using webID or a similar approach this becomes your personal data engine.

The other part of the solurtion is TNP/ISP – the hosting service open standard. The only thing it does is run DNS servers (and possibly offer a caching service when your box is on limited bandwidth).

The DNS config of your domain is for free. The caching service would come at a cheap rate.

You will be free to chose whatever ISP you trust, as long as they implement the TNP/ISP standard.

A candidate plan for a decentralized, distributed network that can complement and eventually replace a lot of proprietary stuff we use nowadays. This is a braindump. I am hoping to...

This case (SAS v WPL) has a lot in common with the Oracle v Google case in the US.

The very short form: WPL created a re-implementation of the SAS Language, using the original documentation of SAS and a freebie version for personal and educational use. SAS claimed they thus infringed on copyright etc.

Seems SAS lost big time.

Now you can almost directly compare this case with Oracle v Google. Simply replace SAS Language with JAVA and watch this drama unfold. Note: IANAL but it seems Oracle wouldn’t have a chance in the EU with the current set of arguments used in the US case.

I am sure some people will downplay this decision, but IMHO this is truly important for API and the freedom to use and even reimplement them.

From the court decision:

WPL perceived that there was a market demand for alternative software capable of executing application programs written in the SAS Language.

Sounds familiar? Think Android (Dalvik) and JAVA.

Its [SAS] principal claims are that WPL:

– copied the manuals for the SAS System published by SAS Institute when creating the ‘World Programming System’, thereby infringing SAS Institute’s copyright in those manuals;

– in so doing, indirectly copied the computer programs comprising the SAS components, thereby infringing its copyright in those components;

– used a version of the SAS system known as the ‘Learning Edition’, in breach of the terms of the licence relating to that version and of the commitments made under that licence, and in breach of SAS Institute’s copyright in that version; and

– infringed the copyright in the manuals for the SAS System by creating its own manual.

Agains, sounds familiar? Oracle claims almost identical things wrt Android and JAVA.

Decision:

1. Article 1(2) of Council Directive 91/250/EEC of 14 May 1991 on the legal protection of computer programs must be interpreted as meaning that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression of that program and, as such, are not protected by copyright in computer programs for the purposes of that directive.

2. Article 5(3) of Directive 91/250 must be interpreted as meaning that a person who has obtained a copy of a computer program under a licence is entitled, without the authorisation of the owner of the copyright, to observe, study or test the functioning of that program so as to determine the ideas and principles which underlie any element of the program, in the case where that person carries out acts covered by that licence and acts of loading and running necessary for the use of the computer program, and on condition that that person does not infringe the exclusive rights of the owner of the copyright in that program.

3. Article 2(a) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the reproduction, in a computer program or a user manual for that program, of certain elements described in the user manual for another computer program protected by copyright is capable of constituting an infringement of the copyright in the latter manual if – this being a matter for the national court to ascertain – that reproduction constitutes the expression of the intellectual creation of the author of the user manual for the computer program protected by copyright.

Not much needs to be added here. IMHO this is a very important decision and Oracle and Google should take note.

[UPDATE]

Awesome official press release of EU court at http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-05/cp120053en.pdf is awesome:

“The functionality of a computer program and the programming language cannot be protected by copyright ”

“On the basis of those considerations, the Court holds that neither the functionality of a computer program nor the programming language and the format of data files used in a computer program in order to exploit certain of its functions constitute a form of expression. Accordingly, they do not enjoy copyright protection.

To accept that the functionality of a computer program can be protected by copyright would amount to making it possible to monopolise ideas, to the detriment of technological progress andindustrial development.”

“In this respect, the Court takes the view that, in the present case, the keywords, syntax, commands and combinations of commands, options, defaults and iterations consist of words, figures or mathematical concepts, considered in isolation, are not, as such, an intellectual creation of the
author of that program.”

This case (SAS v WPL) has a lot in common with the Oracle v Google case in the US. The very short form: WPL created a re-implementation of the SAS...

I think Smári McCarthy, a fellow transnational citizen, Uberhacker and admired activist, touched a special nerve when he recently twittered:

Ours is a world where @ is replacing ©. Attribution, not restrictions.

Spot on. Hence I propose we start calling ourselves Generation @ to indicate that we prefer decentralised attribution over monopolistic, old-school and restrictive, centralised systems like Copyright, patents.

It makes a lot of sense. But it lacks the most fundamental element at this moment – a decentralised, secure, reliable and open system of identity. How can we make sure we put attribution to the right person or entity? See the whole pinterest discussions and the realname policies at Google and Facebook.

Hence we need an open, decentralised, neutral identity layer on the net and in the real life – #freedentity. Let’s start working on that.

I think Smári McCarthy, a fellow transnational citizen, Uberhacker and admired activist, touched a special nerve when he recently twittered: Ours is a world where @ is replacing ©. Attribution,...

Florian Müller (or Mueller when he is quoted in english articles), a self-acclaimed “expert” on software patents and nowadays quite a mouthpiece for FRAND licensing, has always been someone I had a love-hate relationship with. We fought together against software patents in the 2003-2005 years. And while he lost interest and left the stage with a loud announcement that he will never ever work on software patents again, decided to switch to soccer lobbying etc, I was hired by Red Hat, which was (and is) a dream come true and I continued my fight against “IP”-extremism.

Out of the blue Florian came back to the spotlight a few years ago, fighting appartently for David against Goliath in the Turbohercules case (which later turned out to be a company that was funded at least partly by Microsoft), fought for (former) MySQL’s Monty Widenius to stop the SUN/Oracle merger (where Monty later supposedly admitted that Florian was the wrong guy for the job), admitted that he did some “strategic” consulting for Microsoft, shouted about billions and billions at stake when Oracle sued Google, admitted he worked on a research paper for Microsoft to explain that FRAND is somehow compatible with Free Software and Open standards – or in short: He came back with a flurry of stuff that seemed unrelated but not exactly on the same side as my fights.

I accused him at various times that a lot of what he claimed is FUD, blown out of proportion etc. But who am I to criticise Europe’s biggest expert?

Now the court case in Oracle v Google has started. And after all the shouting about billions and billions at stake I was sure that Florian would either be in the court room or at least report the hell out of that case. As, after all, it was him who reported on it for a long, long time. But what did I see? Nothing.

But I give him credits for finally explaining it all himself here:

“Oracle has very recently become a consulting client of mine. We intend to work together for the long haul on mostly competition-related topics including, for one example, FRAND licensing terms.”

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/04/oracle-v-google-trial-evidence-of.html

Where is my surpised face again? Ah, there it is!

This information puts his reporting of the past months in a new light IMHO. He clearly says that

“When Oracle and I started talking about areas in which I could provide analysis, we thought that the Google litigation was going to be over by the time we would work together.”

So it is safe to assume it wasn’t last week. I have always said that in my personal opinion Florians “analysis” is biased. Seems I wasn’t that wrong All journalists that have used his public and non-public information should take note that they are talking to someone that works (and/or has worked) for both Microsoft and Oracle and thus is not exactly an independent source or expert.

That’s all.

Florian Müller (or Mueller when he is quoted in english articles), a self-acclaimed “expert” on software patents and nowadays quite a mouthpiece for FRAND licensing, has always been someone I...