[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 28/09/10 07:23, Henry Bremridge wrote:
On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 08:53:02PM +0100, Rob Beard wrote:Yep, I think really it could possibly do with something more concrete, such as set procedures.TCO etc are all very subjective issues (for example what is the correct discount rate to be used for valuing future costs). IMHO what is therefore important is that the public sector should be required to justify why Floss is NOT used. (I would prefer to have the Public Sector publish the successful contract details and the associated business cases). I am also sure that no matter what is decided proprietary software is too important not to be used in some cases, and while Division of Labour is a well known economic principle, experience seems to illustrate that Floss can save money and time: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10278308-16.html Lest you think this move to open source is inspired by a cloud of cannabis smoke, the report also mentions significant improvements in interoperability (31 percent), cost reduction (8 percent), and quality improvements in the municipal governments (22 percent). The guardian article on Council Costs http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/aug/26/local-government-spending-open-standards-saving is also illustrative. Conversely as Adrian pointed out there is Newham http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Microsoft-Services/Newham-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust-and-NHS-Newham/NHS-Trust-Support-Agreement-Boosts-IT-Skills-Without-Increasing-Overheads/4000007615
'Conversely' there is an advert from MS? So no evidence then. 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/listfaq