High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> London council dumps Microsoft, may go open source instead
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> NEWHAM LONDON Borough Council has scrapped the controversial
>>> 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) it signed with
>>> Microsoft in 2004 and drawn up a new agreement with a new
>>> set of deliverables.
>> `----
>
> The tide has turned ....
>
> [quote]
> The council decided Microsoft's flagship government contract
> failed to demonstrate its value, four years after it was signed.
>
> The revelation will be a boon to the open source movement after
> years of being faced down in the public sector by the shining
> example of Newham, which chose Microsoft over open source on the
> strength of a cut-rate deal and a report commissioned by the
> vendor itself.
> [/quote]
I think that the national audit office should look into the practice
of using vendor-funded studies to make purchasing decisions. In no
possible way could that be seen as being reasonable, fair or open.
These things should really be going out to tender, anyway.
I hope that the people at Newham who were behind this have to find another
job, although I suspect that they're already distancing themselves from
it rapidly with "ooh, but it wasn't my fault, the vendor lied to me"
and similar.
>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/18/microsoft-flagship-flounders
>>
>> Big ouch. /Even/ in the UK, which is close to Microsoft. Last week:
>>
>> EU: Europarlement testing Ubuntu, OpenOffice and Firefox
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>> The European Parliament's IT department is testing the use
>>> of GNU/Linux distribution Ubuntu, OpenOffice, Firefox and
>>> other Open Source applications, the British MEP James
>>> Nicholson explained last week in a letter to Italian MEP
>>> Marco Cappato.
>> `----
>>
>> http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7565
>
> This echoes my point exactly. The best way to overcome FUD is to
> experience the software. I think I am seeing a paradigm shift
> here, in spite of the troll whinings that Linux only has a 0.6%
> market presence, that OpenOffice does not stack up to Microsoft
> (both are pure nonsense).
I quite agree. The amount of interest I get in my N800 in pretty much
every meeting I go to now is amazing.
Yesterday, I video streamed (gizmo, google mail) to a colleague a 2 hour
meeting from my N800 which he had been unable to attend. Audio was done
on a phone line, and video over a local wifi link and down to his PC.
He had local copies of slides in use. He said it was just like being
there! I took him around and introduced him to everyone in the meeting
at the start, and then at the Q&A bit at the end, held him up so that
people could see him as he asked his questions. It worked amazingly
well for everyone.
This new generation of ultra-portable devices, coupled with wireless
connections and foss is creating all kinds of new opportunities, ways of
doing things.
>
> Linux has already caught quite a few eyes, and everyone so far is
> impressed with her looks and performance. "Demonstration" (not
> really demonstration because they are actual implementations)
> projects throughout Europe and world include US have shown that
> Linux is able to very easily take the place of Microsoft
> operating systems. No longer does one have to remain sole source.
Microsoft should never have been allowed to build their monopoly in the
first place. What is most surprising is that the monopolies authorities
across the world have taken so /little/ action over this. One must be
suspicious as to why.
>
>> Is Microsoft Now Banned from EU Contracts?
>>
>> http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=697&blogid=14
>>
>> Euro MP thinks Microsoft should be banned from government
>> contracts
>>
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/10/member-eu-parliament-asks
>>
>> Green MEP says Microsoft should be excluded from EU contract
>> awarding procedure
>>
>> http://www.heise.de/english/newsticker/news/106338/from/rss09
>
I think that Microsoft should be excluded, at least until there is a
demonstrable > 50% of ICT needs being served by non-Microsoft solutions.
The needs should be segmented into desktop, mobility, server, networking
and so on, and we should expect to see no more than 50% dependency on
one vendor anywhere.
Linux itself is free, of course, however, the support contracts can
easily be split across several companies in order to ensure that there
is a fair and equitable system in place.
Once we're at a point where it can be shown, without any doubt, that
Microsoft command no more than 49% of any segment of EU government ICT
needs, then the question of allowing them to tender should be
re-addressed.
--
| mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
| Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
| Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
| Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |
|
|
