Daniel Carrera wrote:
Chad Smith wrote:
2a) MS Office can run on a Mac
You miss the point. You have to pay for the software regardless of
whether you have it on your computer or not. You have to pay for
machines that have *no* MS software on them. This has a huge lock-in
effect.
Only if the administrators have no understanding of economics. It also
depends, of course, on the degree to which the software is discounted in
these agreements.
In engineering school we were presented once with this scenario. A
couple decides to build a house. So they hire an architect who draws up
plans which cost them $1000. They also buy a book of house plans for
$100. Finally, they sit down with pencil and paper and draw their own
set of plans. The question is, Which set of plans should they use?
The answer is whichever plan best fits their needs. The money has
already been spent, so the cost of the plans is irrelevant at that point.
3) These type of agreements can, and usually do, in fact, save the
schools
money.
I see you're good and copying and pasting from Microsoft's website. This
agreement only saves you money if you use 100% Microsoft software, which
takes us back to the lock-in factor. It makes it *VERY* difficult to
switch to something else.
If the discount is 50% from "street price" then you could run Linux on
half the machines and be no worse off. It's only when people start
thinking "Since they paid for it, I have to use it." that you get any
lock-in effect. It's totally psychological.
I used to have to keep track of software licenses for a repair division
in the Navy. It was only twelve machines, but I had to have a locked
cabinet with the software and the licenses and I had to conduct periodic
audits to make sure we were in compliance. I can't imagine having to do
that with 100 or 1000 machines.
So if an organization is intending to use proprietary software a volume
seat license makes sense, especially if there's a discount involved. If
anything, all this just highlights the advantages of using open-source.
It is, in fact, the main reason why I personally support open-source.
It's like getting a volume seat license at zero-cost.
Second, this agreement is *ILLEGAL*. Do you condone breaking the law?
I'm interested -- intellectually -- in what sense the agreement is
illegal. By that I mean, Who's breaking the law? Is it the company or
the school officials? An agreement is just that -- an agreement, a
contract, which is theoretically entered into voluntarily by both
parties. So when you say it's illegal do you mean that it's not
enforceable? Or have the school officials broken a law intended to
promote "good governance" and proper stewardship of public funds? Or do
you mean that it's illegal in the same sense as a murder contract -- a
kind of conspiracy?
--
Rod
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
