__/ [ Maverick ] on Friday 13 April 2007 06:29 \__
> Tom Shelton wrote:
>
>> On Apr 11, 8:15 pm, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>Tim Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2007-04-10, Maverick <S...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>Are you stupid or what?
>>>>>>>Quite a few major media outlets have made mistakes and still do.
>>>>>>>Some even print corrections or retractions. So is it Roys fault for
>>>>>>>their mistakes?
>>>
>>>>>>So? We are not talking about a case where the media made a mistake,
>>>>>>and
>>>>>>Roy accurately reported what the media said. We are talking about
>>>>>>where it is Roy who misrepresents what the media said.
>>>
>>>>>He didn't. Maybe you should reread his post as well. All I see are a
>>>>>few M$ apologists making a lot of racket.
>>>
>>>>The news story accurately reported a company switching from a PHP-based
>>>>system to an open source .NET-based system.
>>>
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>And that is exactly what he was getting at.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Roy reported that they were
>>>>switching away from a .NET-based system. That's Roy's mistake, not the
>>>>media's mistake.
>>>
>>>As an aside... the article was poorly written and ambigous.
>>>The article title is "Open source SplendidCRM..."
>>>It is .Net-centric by nature and integrates well with MS platforms.
>>>(according to the article) but it is still open source software which
>>>has a lower licensing costs than if they'd have went directly to all MS.
>>>Do you see it now?
>>>
>>
>>
>> Except, if you read the article, Cost was not a factor in the decision
>> at all (at least not one they mentioned).
>
> But the article did state that one of their goals was that the license
> costs were lower. We can't ignore the costs as part of the decision.
>
>> The reason for the decision
>> is that they needed to be able to customize it on a per client basis
>> and integrate their own internal software into the system. They
>> couldn't do that with the proprietary systems.
>
> That much we agree on.
>
>>
>> Your mistake here is thinking that on that level anyone is overly
>> concerend about licensing cost... Licensing cost really is just a
>> small part of the overall cost of ownership.
>> For them, it was about
>> flexability. They needed a system that they could tweak on demand -
>> and that required them to use an open source product. Splendid was
>> much better fit because they were able to leverage their existing
>> knowledge base and it integrated into their existing infrastructure
>> better (not to mention it was faster).
>>
>>
>>>So Roy didn't lie.
>>
>>
>> I wouldn't classify what Roy did as lying... But, he grossly twisted
>> the intent of the article with his title. The major problem is the
>> "Company Dumps .NET Software" part. Nothing, could be further from
>> the truth. The fact is that they embraced .NET software in favor of a
>> php solution. The only part of the title that is acurate is the
>> "Finds Happiness in Open Source" part - and that's because SplendidCRM
>> is open source software.
>>
>
> Which puts us both on the same page and ground.
> But Erik sure jumped on Roy and claimed he lied.
Someone whom I trust has just told me that Microsoft poisons the well and
tries to catch people with an egg in the face. Don't believe anything the
trolls say.
--
~~ With kind regards
Proprietary, lockin-based tools lead to regrets. Doc(umen)tor, heal thyself.
http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
5:05am up 33 days 12:08, 8 users, load average: 0.53, 0.85, 0.92
http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project
|
|
