Hi On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 18:44 +0100, Tom Davies wrote:
> Hi :) > Moving to OpenSource for a type of product is a one-time major migration but > it > can be done in baby-steps. > > > Staying with proprietary systems ensures that a similar level of disruption > is > guaranteed every 3-5 years as companies need to sell their new product. No > baby-steps, just disruption. > > > Favouring 1 US company at the expense of all the rest does seem annoyingly > inevitable but it's not particularly new. At least now it is more > transparent. > But even so, a lot of US companies and organisations choose OpenSource > particularly for servers, "mission critical" machines, networking and > infrastructure. > > > Regards from > Tom :) > > > > > ________________________________ > From: webmaster for Kracked Press Productions <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, 6 August, 2011 14:17:58 > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] There goes Open-Source in the White House > > On 08/06/2011 07:43 AM, Tom Davies wrote: > > Hi :) > > Yes, hence the use of TCO (=Total Cost of Ownership). > > > > Macs usually have a much lower TCO than MS because systems are less prone to > > malware and need less maintenance. Also they are a status symbol so who > > cares > > if it actually works or not? > > > > TCO is not just licensing and re-training costs but includes a ton of other > > factors. Such as time taken to roll it out across a large number of > > computers > > along with patches, updates, settings. New or updated Support Contracts or > > in-house IT Staff training. > > > > > > Of course OpenSource can usually mitigate against the re-training costs by > > allowing products to be installed alongside existing& competing ones > > allowing > > migration in a series of steps > > 1. Old system is kept as default so people can play with the newer one and > > slowly get used to it. Training for a percentage of staff in rotation. > > Roll-out can be done over a period of time. Compatibility checks. > > > > 2. Newer system is made default but older one is still available, just more > > difficult to get at. Follow-up training. Again this switch can be > > staggered > > across the organisation rather than all-at-once. > > > > 3. Older system stops being installed on newer or refurbished machines. > > > > Costs will be higher, particularly in the 1st stage which can push people > > into > > rushing it which ramps the costs up even more. Imo the 2nd stage is the one > > worth giving the most time to. The first stage needs a fair fraction of > > that > > time just to make sure things will work and that there are enough trained > >people > > to help colleagues if there is trouble but it's only at the 2nd stage where > > people will really take it seriously or even notice it at all. > > > > > > Elected governments are seldom interested in longer term results. They need > > fast results in order to get re-elected. It's tricky to get a longer-term > view > > without compromising important values. The Uk attempts it reasonably well > > but > > it's far from perfect. Anyway the only relevance that sort of thinking has > > is > > on how to set-up our own BoD and i think that's better discussed on a > different > > list. > > > > > > Regards from > > Tom :) > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: planas<[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Sent: Sat, 6 August, 2011 4:25:14 > > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] There goes Open-Source in the White House > > > > On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 20:53 +0000, toki wrote: > > > >> On 08/05/2011 05:57 PM, upscope wrote: > >> > >>> our government is looking for big budget cuts. One would be replace all > >>> the > >> MS stuff with open source software. > >> > >> > >> If the united states government, or the government of the united kingdom > >> ruled today that effective 1 January 2012, only FLOSS may be used by the > >> government, and closed source, proprietary software was banned, the > >> budget savings would, at the earliest, be visible in 2016, and probably > >> not until 2020, or even 2025. This is simply due to the unbreakable > >> contracts various software vendors have with those governments. > >> Contracts that requires the vendors to be paid, regardless of whether or > >> not the product meets the contract specifications, assuming it is > >> delivered in the first place. > >> > >> Long term, FLOSS saves money. Short term, it doesn't save money, and can > >> be described as costing money. > >> > >> jonathon > >> -- If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting. > >> > >> If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth > >> requesting. > >> > >> DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw. > >> > > Actually changing to another application/OS, etc will require a learning > > curve at the beginning. The advantage that FOSS has is the primary cost > > to using is the learning curve in most cases. I think often the actual > > costs of switching forget if I switched from LO to KOffice I have a > > learning curve, I do not know KOffice so I need to learn its quirks to > > become proficient. If a purchase is involved it just adds to the cost. > > > > Jay Lozier > > [email protected] > I started this thread saying that with a guy at the helm that was a MS high > executive and he would not be the one who would nudge the people under him > towards using non-MS packages. > > Yes, switching from MS Office to LibreOffice will cost time in man hours to > learn how to use it instead of MSO. Yes, there will be costs to "export" all > of > MSO complex formatted files to version that are 100% readable by non-MS > packages. Yes there are a lot of different costs in switching even if the > software is free. > > I agree that having the original software and the new open-source one sitting > side by side on the same machine may help. Having all new or refurbished > machines include "only" open-source versions could help. > > The big issue is to always spend the time and effort to train people in the > use > of these new options. I did not switch to OOo/LO from MSO over night. As I > learned to use open-source versions, over paid ones, I slowly stopped using > packages like MSO in favor of the open-source replacements. The final "blow" > to > MSO was when I decided to use Ubuntu as my default desktop OS. > > In the end, if we want our local, regional, or country governments, to use > open > source we need to voice our support for it. The more people who tell our > governments that we want to see them use open-source packages, the more > likely > that they will hear what we are saying and see if it can be done. If our > elected officials do not do what we want them to do, we elect others we think > will. > > As stated before, the issue of long term contracts for MSO and other packages > can be a problem. But if and when those contracts are up for renewal, we > need > to tell our governments to not renew them. If they are not, over time all of > these contracts will go away and then there will be none in the way of using > open-source alternatives. > > > > -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] > Problems? > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ > Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette > List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ > All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted > I have been told that the MS has been feasting on the US Government for many years. Basically the US Government has standardized on MS where ever possible. -- Jay Lozier [email protected] -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: [email protected] Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
