True, however the cost of the software becomes trivial compared to the cost of re-training the MS orientated staff and the cost savings benefit of the free OS/apps disappears.
jeremyb. > From: Zane Gilmore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 2002/03/18 Mon AM 09:38:55 GMT+12:00 > CC: Canterbury Linux LUG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: Stuff article etc. > > To a certain extent you are right but the initial cost of training > one's IT staff should always be part of the deployment of any new > software. > Although the skills don't exist now this does not mean that they cannot > be created. > The inertia of IT staff with a massive professional investment in M$ > systems would probably be the major hurdle. > > "Ryurick M. Hristev" wrote: > > > > On Sat, 16 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > I have only just started to think > > > seriously about a course of action to take but one thing is clear, > > > SOMETHING must be done. The waste of taxpayer money on proprietary > > > products, especially in support of a proven illegal monopoly is > > > disgusting. > > > > Taking action is nice but please bear in mind one important factor: > > The cost of acquiring commercial software is just part of the overall > > picture. One also need skills to support open software. These skills > > are neither cheap to acquire nor can it be done overnight. IMHO the > > current skills "pool" is not large enough for a large scale open > > software deployment. This means that IMHO pilot/small projects is what > > we should aim for the desktop and possible medium projects for the > > servers "room". > > > > Feel free to disagree with this opinion. :-) > > > > Cheers, > > -- > > Ryurick M. Hristev mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Computer Systems Manager > > University of Canterbury, Physics & Astronomy Dept., New Zealand > > -- > Zane Gilmore, Analyst / Programmer > Information Services Section, Information Technology Dept, University of Canterbury > Private Bag 4800 > Christchurch New Zealand > phone +64-3-364 2987 extn 7895 Fax 3642222 >
