Randomthots wrote:
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.
But that's not the scenario schools are in.
* They have already paid for MS software.
* Adding FOSS software would be an additional expense, and it would have
no cost savings.
So they decide to go for MS. In addition, they decide to upgrade regularly.
3 years later FOSS softare has improved a lot and it is a very
compelling proposition. They consider migration and find that to get out
of the school agreement they are required to pay the full price for
every MS product they have, including upgrades.
Conclusion: lock-in factor.
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.
No it's not. If you later want to get out of the agreement you are hit
with fees that are larger than the IT budget. Second, the reasoning you
applied would only work if Linux was 100% free (ie. no training, no
hardware, no setup). Anything that Linux costs becomes an additional cost.
Compare:
* You can have 100 computers with Windows for $100
* You can have 80 computers with Windows for $100 and 20 with Linux for
$10.
The price per computer is better for Linux (less than half) but it is
still economically disadvantageous to you to use Linux.
Lock-in.
So if an organization is intending to use proprietary software a volume
seat license makes sense,
A volume seat license is not what schools agreement is. You pay per CPU
regardless of what it's running.
Second, this agreement is *ILLEGAL*. Do you condone breaking the law?
I'm interested -- intellectually -- in what sense the agreement is
illegal.
In the sense that it was taken to the office of fair trade and the
office of fair traide decided it was illegal.
Who's breaking the law?
Microsoft.
An agreement is just that -- an agreement,
Would you say the same about an agreement with the mafia? How about an
agreement where Microsoft tells computer sellers "you can only sell
Windows if you don't sell any other operating system"? You don't think
that should be illegal? Well, it is, and Microsoft was found guilty of
doing that as well. Welcome to anti-trust law.
which is theoretically entered into voluntarily by both
parties.
In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not.
This is illegal because a monopoly is using its position to lock in
customers and prevent competition. This behaviour is illegal. Charging
people for a computer that has none of your products is also illegal.
Best,
Daniel.
--
/\/`) http://oooauthors.org
/\/_/ http://opendocumentfellowship.org
/\/_/
\/_/ I am not over-weight, I am under-tall.
/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
