[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Henry Bremridge wrote:
I think that beautifully explains the real poison of MS - the promulgation of the office solution effectively ties you into the 19thC office solution. To move from MS office to Open Office actually continues the same journey down the same (soon to be) oxbow lake off the information highway. 0.01% of effort put into OpenOffice could have gone into open standards pertaining to office functions and then we wouldn't be hearing people say that only (real) business case they can think of for an Iphone is that it integrates well with their (19thC) MS office software.On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:15:32AM +0100, Julian Hall wrote:On 25/05/2010 20:15, tom wrote: I asked my (Conservative) MP here in S Wales what the coalition government's view is on FLOSS, here's his reply: 'The government are positive about FLOSS because it creates greater diversity and competition. I am not sure about plans to use in government but would expect that when IT services contracts come to be renewed that they will consider the best option re cost, efficiency and security.'As always the devil is in the details: in this case how "cost", "efficiency" and "security" are defined. For example lets suppose you have a Microsoft / Proprietary shop of Police, Local Government, Education. Bespoke macros all talking to each other and a support staff who understand the system. To convert to FLOSS:In year 1, - there are significant costs to convert systems, train users- you will need to run both systems because there is no FLOSSequivalent of some proprietary software. Increasing overheads - support staff will be more expensive because there is lesscompetitionYear 2: - Conversion costs will be down- Support staff will still be more expensive - Support for dual systems will be more expensive - The proprietary software may well cost more Year 3 - Existing staff use FLOSS, support costs are down also with increasing competition from providers - Some staff will use FLOSS to improve service - Demands for "tweaking" software will rise: demands for programmers will rise (hence costs) - Proprietary software still costs Year 4: Election time: has FLOSS saved money by this point? The answergiven the above scenario is no.Year 5 onwards: - Service to clients improves - Supports costs drop - No replacement cost for existing software - Reuse of software from other councils etc etc Year 8: Election. Has FLOSS improved costs, efficiency and security? Again in the scenario as written: of course and of course the improvements increase over time: increasing the value of the investment. If you are looking short term, FLOSS will never work: the sunk costs are too high. But of course the key issue is future costs and future benefits. (Well to be specific the expected likelihoods of future cash flows discounted to net present value with lots of focus on what assumptions are embedded in the model). Hence the Dutch solution: if a public body wants to use software then it has to be open source. If you want to use proprietary software then in addition to all local signoffs you need Central Government approval
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