Portugal's Vortalgate — No Microsoft, No Bidding 312
An anonymous reader writes "Companies using software other than Microsoft's are unable to bid at many Portuguese public tenders. This is due to the use of Silverlight 2.0 technology by the company, Vortal, contracted to build the e-procurement portal. This situation has triggered a complaint to the European Commission by the Portuguese Open Source Business Association; the case is unofficially known in Portugal as 'Vortalgate.'"
Macs, moonlight. (Score:3, Insightful)
What about Macs, and Moonlight. Granted Using Silverlight is a stupid move done by STUPID Developers, and braindead PHB. But still if you wanted to do bidding you had ways.
Re:Kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
> This is due to the use of Silverlight 2.0 technology by the company,
> Vortal, contracted to build the e-procurement portal.
I'm sure the bid said, "accessible via any computer with a web browser"? Or "apps available under x, y, and z OS's", or some such?
Quite frankly, although Microsoft getting people dependent on their proprietary APIs is a common business model, this isn't really Microsoft's fault, but Vortal's. Or the doof who put together the RFQ for this particular service for not being more specific about what kinds of computers can access it.
Re:Kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
Silverlight is a wonderful programming platform, easier and more elegant than flash will ever be
That's nice and everything, but anyone using Flash OR Silverlight as a required part of a tendering process needs to be put down for the good of humanity. What could possibly have been going on in their tiny little minds? Responding to this insanity by babbling about Silverlight being better than Flash is absurd.
It's 2009 (Score:5, Insightful)
Silverlight comes along offering nothing new but plenty of obstacles and lock-out of end user browsers, requiring active download of a plug-in, and yet, there are bozos out there willing to commit paying customers and their websites to an endless, costly, non-standard nightmare in exchange for nothing! You can't make shit like that up, it's real.
Re:Kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
...and when Microsoft has wrapped your entire world into a compendium of proprietary digital glop with no hope of improvement, only then will you realize how bad it can be.
...again.
Re:Kdawson (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not about the quality of Silverlight, if you didn't get it go read again.
People with other Operating Systems other than those provided by Microsoft are not able to access a governmental website, that is what is being discussed.
Re:Kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
Mono will always be behind and you can count on MacOSX support being dropped quite soon. Using Silverlight now is no different than what using activeX meant in the past.
Re:Kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
And even better, if you don't work for Novell, and use it via Mono, you might even get sued! Yay for patent-encumbered software that relies on the goodwill of a multiple-conviction monopolist.
Re:I cannot access Slashdot without a web browser (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really had one you would be using Lynx or HyperLink. So STFU and GTFO.
Re:Kdawson (Score:4, Insightful)
Quite frankly, although Microsoft getting people dependent on their proprietary APIs is a common business model, this isn't really Microsoft's fault, but Vortal's.
Well, sort of. Remember that ongoing prosecution of MS in the EU courts for antitrust abuse? Remember what it is about? MS intentionally broke interoperability with Web standards and prevented Web standards from advancing and being more functional on the majority of user's systems by leveraging their Windows monopoly to artificially promote IE. As a result, it is harder for companies like Vortal to implement a procurement system using Web standards, resulting in more companies using Silverlight (and Flash). But since Silverlight is another Microsoft product... well hopefully you see where this is going.
You can argue Vortal should not have used Silverlight for this project and I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean MS bears no guilt for making developing this with interoperable Web standards artificially difficult for Vortal.
Re:It's 2009 (Score:4, Insightful)
I know nothing of web programing
And yet, you still decided that your opinions on this subject are worth sharing with the world. I love slashdot.
Flash has wonderful Linux support, I suppose (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose Flash is much better supported on Linux. Hmmm. Yes there are flash versions, but Adobe took their sweet time about it, did they not?
I'm not a FAN of silverlight (or flash!), but Silverlight seems to be better supported on Linux and Mac than Flash was initially. I could be wrong about that.
I don't undrestand why Microsoft gets blamed for producing a product that isn't supported on platforms that Windows isn't supported on. I may as well complain that it took forEVER for Amarok to get Windows support, and it's STILL not available! Or, even better, that Safari took forEVER to be ported to Windows! Or whatever other software you care to complain about.
If developers choose to use a MS only product, that's not MS's fault. Ms is under no obligation to produce software that works with everyone's, including their competitors, operating system. That makes no sense, monopoly or no monopoly. Now, if they were forcing the developers to use Silverlight, or forcing Adobe not to let Flash have a Windows version, that's different.
Re:I cannot access Slashdot without a web browser (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a commodore_64 for which has been working just fine for me for many many years, but I am told that I must have a "web browser" in order to post comments to the Slashdot web site.
Don't worry dude, I've got you covered! [armory.com]
And forcing people to use Silverlight is nothing like that. There's no good reason to use Silverlight (or Flash for that matter) on a site that easily be done without nonstandard plugins. Remember when they used to do that 10+ years ago? Every site had its own pet video, audio, or other single-purpose wonky player. We're beyond those days, with the notable exception of Flash. Does anyone really want to go back?
Re:It's 2009 (Score:5, Insightful)
...and yet, there are bozos out there willing to commit paying customers and their websites to an endless, costly, non-standard nightmare in exchange for nothing! You can't make shit like that up, it's real.
QFE. You've just summed up all problems in the IT industry in one sentence.
Re:It's 2009 (Score:2, Insightful)
You're missing the point. There is simply no sane reason for a fucking government procurement website to use Flash or Silverlight or Java for that matter on the client side! The Irish government is reknowned for sucking microsoft cock, and even they manage to have a standards-compliant cross-platform procurement site. They're clearly using microsoft on the server side (.aspx!), but they don't prevent companies not using microsoft tools accessing the site.
http://www.e-tenders.gov.ie/search/search_mainpage.aspx [e-tenders.gov.ie]
Re:Macs, moonlight. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, suppose you're selling GNU/Linux desktops. Now to make your bidding for a public tender in Portugal you need to NOT USE your own dogfood?
You need to buy from your competitors in order to compete against them?
Seriously folks, this is a REAL issue (plus, this mess was paid with my taxes, I'll have to demand a refund).
Re:Kdawson (Score:4, Insightful)
If the company were Chinese would that make you happier?
You shouldn't have to pay to use a government website. Especially not someone in a different country.
Am I asking too much?
Re:Macs, moonlight. (Score:5, Insightful)
And by the time we get Moonlight 2.0, Silverlight will be 3.0. You'd almost think they were doing it on purpose...
Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the HUNDREDS of other people in this discussion pointing out that Moonlight is trailing Silverlight feature-wise and that Silverlight 2.0 code CAN NOT run on Moonlight currently, have not forgotten Moonlight.
Re:Macs, moonlight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Really? Don't you think that Adobe or Apple might have something to say about it?
And so would any competitor.
But to the businesses actually doing the bidding, the relevent parties, I would wager none have any issues.
Well of course the ones doing the bidding don't have any issue with it, it's the ones that can't do the bidding that don't like it. The relevant parties are not just those doing the bidding, it's also anyone who might want to bid in the future.
Re:Kdawson (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, if it doesn't, you have the source so fix it yourself.
And the specs to see what needs to be complied to? Oh wait...
Re:Kdawson (Score:3, Insightful)
I do internal development, on a controlled environment, and I have been pushing for moving to Silverlight for the last 3 months or so.
Our users are demanding more 'Web 2.0' styled interfaces, but we're currently supporting IE 5.5, 6, 7, FF 3, and a handful of Opera users.
The incredible mish-mash of CSS/HTML/Javascript/ASP.Net/AJAX/JQuery can do it sure. But it is a royal pain in the ass. The design paradigm looks like something out of a Dr Sues book.
By switching to Silverlight we gain all of the UI features (and more) in a single language that is in the core-competency of the development team. For us, it makes sense. For external sites, it would be a bigger risk until SL gets Flash like penetration.
Comparing SL to Flash though, I think SL is off to a much better start. Both are proprietary. Both have some type of "Open Source" (a lol-worthy quote) model from MS/Adobe. At least we can see the code inside the black box.
SL 1.0 was released for Windows/Mac September 2007.
ML 1.0 was released for Linux January 2009.
About 16 months to get Linux caught up.
Flash 7 (MX04) for Linux was released what, some time back in 2004?
Flash 8 wasn't released for linux (and it wasn't backwards compatible with 7)
Flash 9 was released for Windows/Max late 2006.
Flash 9 was released for Linux early 2007.
About 3 years to get Linux caught up.
It's hard to pull up release dates from before then, but given the current state of Flash on Linux (a mild jump up from pure crap), I can't imagine their support a decade ago was anything more than laughable.
Seeing the Moonlight team's progress so far, and the apparent ease of access they have to Microsoft and the Silverlight team, it seems like the jump to Moonlight 2.0 isn't going to be a 3 year delay like the jump from Flash 7 to Flash 9 was for Linux. And once Moonlight 2.0 is running, further jumps to the inevitable SL 3.0 will likely hinge more on the Mono project keeping up with the 4.0 version of the .Net Framework.
Using either Silverlight or Flash in inappropriate situations is dumb. But the existence of Silverlight and the competition it creates for Flash will truly only improve the functionality of rich browser applications (what I've been trying to get coined as 'Chubby clients').
-Rick
Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Are we all forgetting about Moonlight?
Okay, other people clued you in about this.
...while retaining no licensing snafus.
That's a really hard assertion to prove.
Basically, you're all letting your fanboy rage over Microsoft blind your sense to the point that you're pushing a fully proprietary non-oss solution (flash) over a fully open source solution.
Who's promoting Flash? This could be done in Java or javascript even using all open Web standards. Failing that, Flash is not being promoted by a criminal organization whose trust gives them direct, financial incentive to break compatibility with other versions. Finally, Adobe pushing the proprietary Flash upon the industry is not illegal since they aren't abusing a monopoly in another market to do it.
As far as I can tell, it doesn't matter how much better the development is made by tools, docs, and language, or how open source the project is... all that matters is Microsoft affiliation.
Not at all. I'm just as opposed to other antitrust abuse from other companies as I am to abuse from MS. Most other people seem to feel the same. Take a look at discussions about local cable and phone monopolies, for example.
So slashdot isn't necessarily pro-linux, pro-oss, or pro-free software. It's just anti-microsoft.
Slashdot is not homogenous, but a lot of people are very vocal about MS. MS has given them good reason. This is primarily a computing forum and MS has done more damage to various parts of the computing industry via their criminal acts than pretty much any other company. Had Slashdot been around during the bad old days you'd have been claiming it was just an anti-IBM site.
Here's the final word: if Microsoft is beating the Adobe toolchain in a cost-benefit-analysis, then more people should volunteer on Moonlight...
I'd say if MS is beating them without breaking the law... which is highly unlikely if you understand antitrust law. Even then it is debatable.
Re:Kdawson (Score:3, Insightful)
Microsoft nearly did kill Office for the Mac, but was a required part of a dispute settlement. Now, it's too profitable to kill off. That's called a dilemma.
MSOffice for the Mac is profitable, but not so much that MS could not kill it if they thought it strategic. The reason they don't is because it would not be a good move for them. Nearly everyone knows MS has a monopoly on desktop OS's, but they also have monopoly influence on the office suite software market. They've spent huge amounts of money in settlements making sure no court case ever gets to the point where that is an official ruling, but it is true nonetheless. It is one of their largest lock-ins to prevent Linux adoption which is why they have been fighting open standard formats so hard and in such a dirty fashion. It's also their business plan going forward for software as a service.
Losing the entire Mac chunk of the market would do a lot undermine their ability to maintain that monopoly influence going forward. It would almost instantly triple the market for alternative office suites and MS really, really doesn't want that to happen.
Re:Kdawson (Score:4, Insightful)
You seem to forget Microsoft attitude towards software patents and Linux. Microsoft is allowing a (mostly unfunctional) implementation of Silverlight in order to get the perception of it being cross platform, but at some point, and by murphy's law it will be the worst time for your deployment, they will pull the patents card from their sleve.
Re:It's 2009 (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
Why use any proprietary system which reaches 70% of the people when you can use Standards and reach 100% of the people? I fault the idiots who can't recognize the trap this is.
The other possibility is the people who spec this system are too young to recall how bad it was under the heyday of the Microsoft Dictatorship. Development stalled, bugs went unpatched, exploits soared, functionality went down, costs went up, better technologies died etc. Now, the younger generation doesn't believe you when you refer to Microsoft as the Evil Overlord. It's just another vendor now.
I guess we have come a long way.
Re:Open Source vs. Closed Source (Score:3, Insightful)
Who supports HTML 5? It's not even a complete standard. So it's hardly specified much less implemented.
There is an implementable draft and it is partly implemented by basically all the browsers except IE. The point being, we're talking about pushing new technologies (which Silverlight 2 is) to solve the problem. Not that new technologies are needed, mind you, that was just for the sake of illustrating the point.
Are you honestly suggesting a non-existent solution vs. an existent and supported one?
I'm not suggesting anyone implement anything in any particular technology. I'm mentioning that MS's actions in promoting Silverlight are probably illegal and this is evidence of damages.
RTFA. The Portugal Free Software Wingbat club is challenging it to a governing body.
You RTFA. From TFA: "The gravity of this situation gave rise to a written statement sent to the European Commission." The EU commission is handling the ongoing antitrust prosecution of MS.
This is a rather unique situation- you see, the open source platform kind of sucks. It pushes absolutely godawful technology from the 70's and 80's and gets by based on its ability to run a web browser.
That's no unique at all. Monopoly abuse removes the financial incentive to invest in making good competitors. It is to be expected. It retards innovation and artificially makes competing technologies work more poorly due to interoperability issues.
Apple is a great example of the fact that there's more to this than monopoly- they are gaining market share by making a better product, not by forcing their product to be bundled in a court of law.
Economics wasn't your best class was it? Apple is gaining market share by bypassing the desktop OS market entirely and refusing to license their OS to OEMs, while making desktop systems (a market which is not monopolized).
. Firefox gained market share by actually beating IE 6, and then IE 7 to a lesser extent, and even IE 8, to an even lesser extent.
Yeah they only have a vastly superior product and have for many years and it has netted them what 20%? Yeah, sounds like the market is working great.
Still: no monopoly could stop technical excellence, because the competition is hardly held down.
Yeah, don't remember why we have antitrust laws do you. Your assertion is proven false by history and contradicts every economic model with any credibility.
Free market capitalism is free market, monopoly control is technically socialism- not that I don't support it.
No, that is not socialism, either in the political or economic sense. Monopolies being abused are similar to socialism in that they remove the incentive for innovation and efficiency, but dissimilar in that they are controlled by a company whose goal is profit instead of by the people through their government theoretically for the greater good.
Actually, there's really no official reason that the w3c is in charge of the web- it's just a group of businesses. It's only recently been a web of standards- for the most part, those standards are pushed by various other companies who pull strings in the coalition. The web standards are a tremendous and unreadable mess...
The W3C and written standards are pretty much beside the point. Web technologies have not moved forward because MS is not financially motivated to make them do so and is motivated to hold them back. MS helped write a lot of those standards before writing intentionally noncompliant versions. Did you not pay attention to the facts unearthed by their court case in the US?
The moderators are just other people like you, who think like you. It's user moderated, and the users on this site are mostly idiots- not engineers, designers, or developers; just s
Re:Macs, moonlight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? Because it's safe to assume everyone uses Windows and Microsoft technologies?
Wrong answer. That would be like the U.S. government assuming everyone drove Fords.
Re:Kdawson (Score:5, Insightful)
And sliverlight runs under what broswers? It will run under IE 5.5 right? Why not just demand all your users get Firefox 3/Opera/Safari 4 and write cutting edge CSS3 pages with XML and SVG for all those cool effects. The only browser that's broken is IE. Yet every body jumps to the "microsoft only" solution as the savior to the problem??? Why???
Re:Kdawson (Score:2, Insightful)
Its the fault of the government asshole making some dough on the side by choosing a provider without making sure that they comply with what should be minimal government procurement practice for public facing electronic trading.
Same in portugal as anywhere i guess.
Re:Kdawson (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you think all this CSS/Javascript/HTML/Ajax/whatever doesn't work in allo those browsers, it's because of what Microsoft did.
This is probably the worst reason to go with Microsoft-technology, because you know you will just create an evironment where it easier for them to create the same bad situation all over again.
Don't push Silverlight, push Firefox or something. Use open standards. Maybe use Firefox Prism.
Just so you know, there are MSI-packages of Firefox for Windows as well if you need them.
Hell, getting people from IE-old to IE8 would be a large improvement.
Re:Kdawson (Score:1, Insightful)
The reason why the same CSS/Javascript/HTML/Ajax does not work across browsers is because the specifications for some of those beasts were unclear on the beginning, did not exist and had to be invented (ideally first as proprietary extensions, then as general features that were added to a standard).
For instance, even the "img" tag was a proprietary extension at one point, it just happens that it became mainstream.
The same goes for the "A" in AJAX, it was invented by Microsoft and later adopted across the board.
Browser vendors are too quick to add their own "proprietary" extensions left and right.
Mozilla packs tons of -moz-XXXX CSS tags that are Mozilla specific and of course does not work on other browsers.
WebKit/Safari packs its own collection of specific selectors.
Some become part of standards, but it takes a few years for the standard to percolate to every system.
Attributing everything that has gone wrong with the Web on Microsoft just shows your ignorance in the subject.