French Military Police Switches to Firefox

Oslo_the_CKC writes to tell us that French Magazine Linux Pratique recently published an interview with General Brachet of the Gendarmie Nationale. In the interview he discusses why they have moved over 100,000 personnel over to Firefox and Thunderbird (70,000 and 45,000 respectively). This follows on last year's switch to OpenOffice.org so it seems like the French Military Police are enjoying the success of open source.

Re:100,000 Personnel ??

[ClamIAm]

Um, dude how bad is your math? Assuming that they aren't leaving some with IE+Thunderbird or Firefox+OE, 15,000 will be using both.

The whole article

[rminsk]

In an interview published by French Magazine Linux Pratique (issue #33), Général Brachet, in charge of IT for Gendarmerie Nationale explains why the French Military Police force (more than 100,000 personnel) has chosen to deploy Firefox and Thunderbird to respectively 70,000 and 45,000 seats. Here are a few excerpts:

        Linux Pratique: What are the most important features of Firefox 1.5?

        Général Brachet: These features are independent of the version number. The most important things about Firefox are its compliance with W3C standards and its availability on several platforms (Microsoft, Linux and Mac). When the Gendarmerie will deliver application on-line to homeland security organisations and, in the future, to citizens, it will not request the users to use any particular platform or piece of software from specific vendors. Using Firefox or any other Web-standards-compliant browser will be requested, independently of the platform (...)

       

Linux Pratique : How many seats are going to be deployed, and how long will it take?

       

Général Brachet : Starting January 1st, 2006, Firefox will be the browser of choice for the Gendarmerie. (...) This migration will impact every PC connected to the Intranet and the Internet, totalling 70,000 seats, before the end of the year 2006. Most of the Web services will be W3C-compliant by then. (...)

        Linux Pratique : OpenOffice.org (last year), now Firefox, when will you swich to Linux?

        Général Brachet : Thunderbird will be deployed as the only mail client on 45,000 seat in 2006. The idea is to provide every unit with a workstation and have it used daily. Every Gendarme will have four tools at his disposal: a bureautique suite, for writing documents and doing procedural work, a browser to access the Information Systems, a mail client to communicate and an antivirus. Our first goal is to migrate all the upper layers of the workstation to Open Source Software to be independent of the Operating System.(...)

It's a great pleasure to see this important project being finally revealed to the general public, and to see Gendarmerie Nationale understand the importance of Open Source Software and Web standards. It uses them, and even gives back some code the the community, while telling the world about it. If I had a wish for 2006, it would be to see large users do the same, and tell publicly that they use Open Source projects. For them, it would be a way to give back to these projects something they really need: visibility.

Mirrordot to the rescue

[sucker_muts]

Article slashdotted:

Mirrordot link! [mirrordot.org]

French Gendarmerie

[Edzor]

Just to clear things up the blog is talking about the French Gendarmerie, the french national police force.
It does not mean the actual French Military Police as we would think of it; the police force of the miltary.

the french army only has 136,000~ soldiers!

Re:100,000 personnel

[etresoft]

It is not the same thing. It is more like our National Guard than our police.

Re:100,000 personnel

[program21]

From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:

The total number of military personnel is approximately 300,000. However, 100,000 of these are in the Gendarmerie, and thus a vast majority of these 100,000 are used in everyday law enforcement operation inside France and are not fit for external operations.

Re:100,000 personnel

[kfg]

It's the Gendarmerie Nationale. What you would call "The Feds," not what you would call the MPs.

KFG

Re:100,000 personnel

[Shky]

According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] they do more than police the military. "The policing of countryside areas and of small towns, usually populations under 10000, outside of the jurisdiction of the French National Police."..."Crowd control and other security activities." etc. So, according to Wikipedia at least, they do a lot more.

Re:100,000 personnel

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this is not the military police.

In France you have two kinds of police
- The "Police Nationale" (and it's derivatives : anti-gang, anti-drug, financial, etc.) that is the main force, it is civilian and has power over civilans. Classically they act more in the cities.
- The "Gendarmerie" that is a military body with only civilian authority, that act more in the countryside. It is from the military, but it has no power over the "regular" military forces (like the navy, air force, etc.).
Of course Police and Gendarmerie overlap and cooperate.

The people that switched to Firefox is the "Gendarmerie". This is not the MPs as in america.

Hope that helps

david, Paris

Re:Why the switch?

[aaronl]

2a) No, and it probably isn't next year, either. Most people that I have conversations with about such things either believe that it's for the best or don't believe me at all. Unless people stop believing things just because Congress said so, or the TV/newspaper/etc said so (or we replace those with something trustworthy), this attitude is not likely to change. People seem to be too lazy to actually verify what they hear.

2b) Yes, I can remember having contempt for France for as long as I knew their history. My humor about France hasn't changed in at least 20 years (coincidentally, the period over which I've made jokes at France's expense). My opinion of France went down over Iraq II, but not because they opposed it. It was because of the backroom deals that they were brokering with Iraq. I also oppose the US meddling in foreign governments. If it weren't for the treaties and such that France had agreed to, I wouldn't care that they were making deals with Iraq.

3) You forgot a significant portion of Africa from the list of places with reason to hate France.

1/4/5) I agree! New France jokes would be very amusing. ;-)

Seriously, Slashdot is indicitive of the follow-the-leader mentality just as much as Fark, Digg, Kuroshin, or most anywhere else. People like to fit in, they like being modded up, and they're often somewhat afraid of standing out for voicing a different opinion.

BTW - GP was a joke; lighten up!

I wonder how they will manage upgrades

[rduke15]

I had a hell of a time upgrading 15 users from 1.0.3 to 1.5.

I just didn't find a way to do it reliably and automatically, preserving the few installed extensions and plugins (Flash, QuickTime+ Real Alternative).

In the end, I had to physically go to each computer and check everything, making sure I also checked everybody's roaming profile.

I love Firefox for myself (it's my main browser since it was called Phoenix), but next time I deploy it in a company, it will need to have clear instructions on how to do that without a physical install/configuration/plugins and extensions install/etc.

I don't mind having to write a few Perl scripts to do it, if I can get clear instructions.

If the French military deployed it to 100000 people, maybe they have documented how they did it? Or maybe they just don't know about the upgrade hell yet?

After all, initial install was easy using FFdeploy. It's the upgrades that are a problem

Re:Why the switch?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your whining is getting pretty fucking old too...

Re:All the French-bashing aside . . .

[smittyoneeach]

Yeah, I like a good Gallic gouging too, but I recently read The Glorious Cause [amazon.com], as well.
The US has a lot to thank the French for, in the way of underwriting the Revolution (for all their motives were questionable). There were more French at Yorktown than Colonials, and the French fleet was key at Virginia Capes (though later kindling in the West Indies).
Would that more Yanks had clue #1 about history.

Re:Why the switch?

[Rei]

Yes, France opposed the war in Iraq because of OFF. Lets look at that logic.

1) How can you claim that it had nothing to do with 75% of the French public opposing the invasion? After all, it's not like leaders in democracies who act contrary to the will of 75% of their populace on major issues tend to have trouble getting reelected.

2) What is the logic of France risking their trade with the US to make a small fraction of the few billion dollars involved in the Oil For Food program? This trade involves 2,400 French subsidiaries in the US employing 500,000 people with 160B$ turnover, and the converse (US subsidiaries in France, which employ 580,000 people with 135B$ turnover). France owns 143B$ of US stock, a fourfold increase in the past decade. The US owns 55B euros of French stock, doubling over the past decade. In 2003, the US imported 23B euros worth of French goods; France imported 22.4B euros worth from America.

3) The oil for food program involved roughly 4-5B$ (over its decade long lifespan) in kickbacks to the *Iraqi government*. Most people here are painfully unaware of how it worked, so let me clarify - it occured just the same way that it happens in third world nations all over the world to enrich the pockets of government officials. An unscrupulous company
offers to sweeten the pot (in this case, to the Iraqi government) by raising their prices artificially. The government selects the contract of the overpriced goods. The company then discretely pays the extra money under the table to the Iraqi government. The company gets the contract, and the kickback-receiving party (the Iraqi government) manages to divert money from protected funds to their pockets.

Many people confuse kickbacks with the accused payoffs of officials. Some payoffs have been confirmed, and resulted in convictions. Others have been proven to be false, and resulted even in successful libel suits against the accusors. Part of the problems in the list of the accused may be the source - it came from the Iraqi Oil Ministry, which at the time was run by the Iraqi National Congress (not exactly a beacon of truthful information). The payoffs tend to be small - usually a few tens to a few hundred thousand dollars (compared to the billions in kickbacks under OFF, and tens of billions in oil smuggling). The highest ranking French official accused is former interior minister Charles Pasqua and his aide Bernard Guillet. Not only has Pasqua denied all of the charges (and is actively working to clear his name), and not only would the interior minister not be prominant in a decision to go to war, but he hasn't even been in office since 1995. There are two other French former officials under investigation - Jean-Bernard Merimee and Serge Boidevaix - but they likewise had not been in office when the alleged crimes took place.

Re:Without the French there wouldn't be a USA!

[natmakarvitch]

Here is a different, albeit somewhat documented, point of view: http://www.exile.ru/2003-October-02/war_nerd.html [exile.ru]

Re:Why the switch?

[gbobeck]

Concerning all of the French surrender comments, I feel obligated to quote the site http://weblog.blogads.com/comments/514_0_1_0_C/ [blogads.com]

"World War I cost France 1,357,800 dead, 4,266,000 wounded (of whom 1.5 million were permanently maimed) and 537,000 made prisoner or missing -- exactly 73% of the 8,410,000 men mobilized, according to William Shirer in The Collapse of the Third Republic. Some context: France had 40 million citizens at the start of the war; six in ten men between the ages of eighteen and twenty-eight died or were permanently maimed."

And further down on that page...

"But to be fair to the French. I don't believe a national characteristic of "cowardice" exists. Aside from the pathetic surrender and weak resistance during World War II, the French have actually been quite brave in battle. They were brave in Vietnam (French Indochina), brave in World War I, they played a role in the initiation of the Franco-Prussian War, and throughout history they have been willing to fight heroically even when the odds were against them. It is true that they have had little military success in the last 150 years. But this is due to poor military strategy, faulty equipment, and general bungling, it has nothing to do with French cowardice. Of course, I still can't say much for the half hearted defense of France during World War II. But that is more of the exception than the rule."

Re:Please reply French-bashing by Chirac-bashing

[cnerd2025]

Yeah, I'm American and I notice a "French-bashing" population here. However, it more had to do with the fact (or percieved fact) that France was very eager to sell weapons and equipment to Sadaam. Also, many Americans have stated the arrogance they faced in Paris. It is a fairly popular opinion, or at least an opinion of the loudest voices, that the French treat the US with hostility and arrogance, such as France's rigid resistance toward English. I can't exactly blame France for trying to protect its national unity, but English is indeed the language of business, thanks to the French archrival, Britain, and thus the French response, creating new "official" words for American products with English names, absolutely disgusts us. Language for the sake of national unity is one valid goal, but language for the sake of pride is just ridiculous. The US's frustration with France really stems from the fact that the US absolutely saved France's posterior in both World War I and World War II. It is said, "if not for English-speakers, French-speakers would be speaking German." That said, the US also sees room to poke fun at France for its failures in military, being only marginally successful when being led by Joan of Arc and Napoleon Bonaparte. The other American criticism of France is its outspoken criticism of the US going to war, as if the UN Security Council had to absolutely approve the war. In fact, each country is still allowed to act in its own interests; the US asked the UN, and upon denial, struck anyway. Back home, many of us, including myself, believe that WMD should never have been used as a reason for war. The US's interests were indeed the fight against radical islam, but psuedocauses were leaked out of the White House on many occasions, leading Americans and the world to believe that Bush acted for the sake of oil (which is absurd; we could simply invade Venezuela for oil) or other causes . The US really wished to blackmail Saudi Arabia and threaten Libya, Syria, and other nations sponsoring radical islamic terrorism. Everyone honestly thought that Sadaam did indeed have WMD, including the French and the Germans. You mentioned Sweden's opposition, but keep in mind that Sweden is a historically Neutral country since the Viking ages and that they were no outspoken critic, as France and Germany were. Of course, you raise a valid point about Chirac. In Germany, a new ruling coalition is much more in favor of US policy, and Chirac's slide of popularity is indicating a much more US-friendly government in France at the next election. I mentioned that I am not a Bush fan, and I am almost certain that after this term, his party will not get a reelection. Hope I provided some insight into how America feels. I don't really justify the hateful anti-French messages, but I do occasionally poke fun. :-X

Ah, no. What really happened:

[Nice2Cats]

Seriously kicked the Romans Butts many times as Galacia.

But in the end, lost. Germans slaughtered the Romans in the Teuteburg Forest, kept their independence. The French lost their language -- modern French is mutilated Latin -- and the good things about French cooking were introduced by the Romans.

Did so again under Charlemange.

Whose capital was in Aachen, Germany -- the empire was as much German as it was French.

Kicked the English's butts under William the conqueror.

Er, no. The Normans kicked English ass, in other words, those parts of France that were of Scandinavien decent. So, the Vikings kicked French ass, and the children of the Vikings invaded England.

Kicked the English's butts again several times during the 100 years war.

Now, this one is downright silly. The English owned half of France for most of that war, and the Battle of Poitiers [wikipedia.org] was one of the worst military defeats in history. The French even let the English capture their king! Then, when Joan of Arc comes to rescue them, the French burn her at the stake.

Supported the rebels during the American Revolution.

Which, from their point of view, was a really, really stupid move because the American influence on France helped pave the way for the French Revolution.

You're missing an entry here: Bungled their Revolution, thereby giving democracy a bad reputation in Europe that would remain for more than 100 years.

Nearly united europe during the napoleonic wars (then foolishly tried to invade Russia during the winter).

This one is pretty sick -- this is sort of like saying the Nazis nearly united Europe (note: I am not comparing Nazi war crimes to what Napoleon did). Conquest doesn't count as unification. Well, unless you win, of course...but there we are again, right?

Held off the german forces in WW I

And afterwards made a point of humiliating Germany so badly that it didn't take much for the Germans to really want to get them. Technically you are right, but still not France's finest hour.

When invaded by germany in WW II, held out just long enough for the British Expiditionary force to sail from Dunkirk.

This one, again, is downright silly. Compared to how the Dutch and the Norwegeans fought, the French rolled over and played dead. For every Frenchman in the Resistance, there was one happily supporting the Nazis. The French spent the time before the war telling themselves how great they were instead of paying attention to military advances.

You forgot: Lost badly against Prussia. Created a slaughter in Algeria. Lost a war in Indochina (but then, who hasn't).

Now, strangely enough I actually agree with the original poster that French bashing is getting sort of old, and their opposition to the Second Gulf War turned out to be very much the right choice. They said there were no WMD, and they were right, and we were wrong, and now our kids are dying in Iraq for a lie, and their kids aren't. Chalk this one up for the French.

But that does not mean that we need to pretend that French military history is anything other than a fiasco all the way through. The did good things in literature, had some great scientists, some people even like their food. But great fighters, no. Those were one country further east.

Re:Please reply French-bashing by Chirac-bashing

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, France was not eager to sell weapons/equipment to Saddam (do /France on http://bushlies.net/pages/9/index.htm [bushlies.net]). And, in case you forgot, the US sponsored Saddam's government until ~1990 and even the Taliban while the Russians were in Afghanistan. There was no radical Islam in Iraq - Saddam's government, like many dictatorships, tried to quench religious forces to maintain absolute power. France and Germany were not the only countries to oppose the Iraq war, practically every country except the US and Britain did and there were protests worldwide. Try to get some facts right - the reason a lot of people dislike the US is not anything that happened years before most of us was born but rather the fact that many people seem to have no idea about what the country is doing yet it's one of the countries that needs the most direction to do things right due to sheer size and power.

Re:Please reply French-bashing by Chirac-bashing

[cnerd2025]

Britain could not stop the Germans in either World War. In fact, if the British and the French of the time had accepted Wilson's plan for peace as the Treaty of Versailles, World War II would likely never have happened. Also, the Allies were for a time losing the first World War. The American entrance in retaliation to the German provocation as well as the Zimmerman telegram (admittedly provided by the British secret service) tipped the scales of the war in favor of Allied forces, especially with a revolution and pull-out of Russia. In WWII, Germany nearly obliterated the UK, though America could have definitely learned from the British knowledge base. I don't recall, however, seeing that the British stopped the Germans from invading France in 18 days. The British seemed to buy that argument about the Ardennes forest. Ironically, Blitzkrieg was originally thought of by a French guy (and they were too proud to enact it). I also didn't see the French or the British laying down the law on the Germans after they signed the Treaty of Versailles (the US became very isolationist afterward and did not even ratify the treaty). History has all but proven that Hitler's rise stemmed from punishment of the Germans following World War I. Without the US in either World War, Britain would have put up a strong fight, but there is as good a chance the Central/Axis powers would have been victorious. As for the American Revolution, you are indeed correct. This is no small contribution, but when we returned the favor in World War I and II and then in Vietnam (after which we were deserted by the French) the French government outspokenly criticizes the US so they can sell weapons and equipment to a ruthless dictator? Also keep in mind that early in the US's history, the French provocated war on the US in several instances, such as the XYZ affair. The French simply do not have superb military gift. The British and the Americans combined make up the force to win wars, but Britain needed external man-power and equipment in World War II, especially after the air-raids by the Nazis. Britain contributing "substantially more" is outrageous; only after US involvent in both World Wars, did the Allied powers come out ahead.