[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Mark Evans wrote:
Two points 1)tendering - if you've got a clue about computing and the problem being tendered for then the tendering will be be 99% of the work - well the bits that make sense in the requirements anyway.Gordon Henderson wrote:On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Henry Bremridge wrote:My suspicion is that public bodies do not want to switch to FLOSS for one of the following reasons: - Our contracts specify proprietary software. - The current system works (aka the devil we know is better that the devil we don't) - When we have looked at it, we have looked with a view to seeing how it will not work. We have not tried to think how we can make it work. - We do not know our current software will run on it. - We have data sharing agreements that run on proprietary modelsCall me cynical, but I'd add to that something along the lines that the *huge* companies that currently tender and are awarded the contracts to produce the current set of bespoke "national" software have large groups within them who actively lobby the govt., etc. to tell them that their way is best... If you or I go in to tender for something, then we'd get laughed away in the breeze.Assuming we could even afford the entry fee. The tendering process can easily run into 7 figures. Consider that not every tender will be sucessful and the cost may well be 3-5 million pounds before anything to do with the task in question is involved.
2) you often get PAID to tender as a preferred supplier or whatever it is.3) you're just not cynical enough- you could walk in there with a completed, proven system and not even win a chance to tender!
Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html