On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 14:03 +1000, Null Ack wrote: > Slawek having been on the tender process for numerous Government > contracts (both inside in the Government and outside in vendors) the > key pros / cons for Linux I see are: > > 1. Pro - reduced TCO > 2. Pro - easy sell for servers > 3. Con - hard sell for desktops. I did not see anything particularly > solid in preventing this - its more a lack of understanding. Im sure > some areas really could not do without Office but most that make this
I find it less confusing to call "Office" "Microsoft office". helps destinguish from [star,open,gnome,kde]office :) kk > claim are in my experience wrong about OpenOffice capabilities. Some > sites have custom .net apps running so it would be critical that Mono > or some equiviliant really worked. Actually I dont really understand > all the whining about Mono as I understand that is is now an open > standard and not a MS standard? Theres probably going to be the > occasional legacy app written on the win32 application platform that > doesnt play nice with Linux. What we did on one project where all the > infrastructure was replaced was to have a few citrix sessions running > legacy apps - for some reason they didnt want virtualisation for > desktop apps. I dont remember who said it, but i find the quote "The biggest cost of proprietary software is migrating away from it" (something like that anyway) quite relevent. Not very helpful when "selling" gnu/linux, but still relevent. kk > -- Karl Goetz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- ubuntu-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-au
