Horst Herb wrote: > On Wednesday 12 April 2006 00:05, Barry Lollo wrote: >> I think this is great news. Standardisation has got to be a good thing. >> That of course is irrespective of Vendor. But I see no good reason why >> this shouldn't be a successful strategy based on the choice of Vendor >> alone. > > Standardisation as in adherence to public standards certainly is a good thing. > Monoculture is not though, and there is an obvious difference.
I don't think that this all-of-NSW Health Microsoft licensing arrangement necessarily implies a drive towards a Microsoft monoculture - that only Microsoft systems can be used or deployed in NSW Health. At least I sincerely hope it does not. There are many non-Microsoft systems in NSW Health and it would take quite a lot of time and money to replace them with Microsoft equivalents (and in many cases, such equivalents just don't exist), with no great gain in anything except perhaps a particular type of meaningless neatness of the IT architectural diagram. In fact, the Microsoft marketroid quoted in the Australian IT article stresses how good Microsoft is at interoperating with other systems. Take that with a grain of salt, but even Microsoft clearly recognises the reality of a mixed IT environment. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
