I don't quite follow...
I understand this argument which, while real
enough, is still FUD in the long run...
"Mid-sized companies switching to free software
may incur less obvious costs. Re-training
employees and working with programmers to
customize the new software to match previously
made tweaks in Microsoft's products can add up."
But I don't understand what is being implied in
the next sentence. Can someone clue me in on
what this means in terms of an Office Suite of apps?
"Most large companies will find these trade-offs
unacceptable. The applications do not provide
adequate archiving options to meet legal
demands, nor do they guarantee the type of
security requirements."
http://www.forbes.com/business/2007/09/19/microsoft-office-software-tech-cx_rr_0919ibm.html
(It almost looks like there was something that
was supposed to come after the word "requirements")
Discussing "adequate archiving", "legal demands"
and especially *"guarantee"* in the same
sentence as "security requirements" in any
argument that even implies that the level that
M$ is at can't "easily" be reached seems to me
to be absurd.
If someone has an idea of what this sentence
means I sure would appreciate being clued in ;^)
TIA,
rbw
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
