____/ Mark Kent on Wednesday 23 April 2008 07:27 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> ____/ Mark Kent on Monday 21 April 2008 17:05 : \____
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>> ____/ Doug Mentohl on Sunday 20 April 2008 13:43 : \____
>>>>
>>>>> "NEWHAM .. has scrapped the controversial 10-year .. (MOU) it signed
>>>>> with Microsoft in 2004"
>>>>>
>>>>> "The council decided Microsoft's flagship government contract failed
>>>>> to demonstrate its value, four years after it was signed"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/04/18/microsoft-flagship-flounders
>>>>>
>>>>> "We have a copy of that Capgemini study, and the one we have totally
>>>>> contradicts what's being claimed,"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3397021
>>>>>
>>>>> "Computer Weekly reports that this team is carrying out an audit of
>>>>> Newham's IT systems with the objective of showing that Newham's TCO
>>>>> using Microsoft software will be lower than if it goes open source.
>>>>> The exercise is being funded by Microsoft"
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/29/ms_moves_to_counter_open/
>>>>
>>>> Richard Steele and the 'gang' appear to be behind this scandal. Microsoft
>>>> is still playing dirty and it has its UK 'troopers'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> What's amazing is that a publicly funded body can use Vendor funding to
>>> prove that the same Vendor is the best, most cost effective option.
>>>
>>> Surely the council's own auditors would find that most unsatisfactory?
>>> In fact, I would think that the National Audit Office, under the highly
>>> competent Comptroller and Auditor General, one Mr Tim Burr, would be
>>> *very* interested in this activity. The NAO page is here:
>>> http://www.nao.org.uk/ if anyone fancies mentioning this to them.
>>>
>>> Of course, they might say that it's local government, and not their
>>> concern, but as most local government money comes from central
>>> government anyway, I think they'd like to see just how much is lining
>>> the pockets of Microsoft for this "independent" study.
>>
>> Microsoft:
>>
>> "Working behind the scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our
>> technology, and damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function
>> during the Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising
>> your technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them).
>> "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give conference
>> presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our behalf (and setting
>> them up as experts in the new technology, available for just $200/hour).
>> "Independent" academic sources should be cultivated and quoted (and research
>> money granted). "Independent" courseware providers should start profiting
>> from their early involvement in our technology. Every possible source of
>> leverage should be sought and turned to our advantage."
>>
>> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20071023002351958
>>
>> Lots of actual incidents exist where Microsoft was caught hiding
>> sponsorships. Microsoft is simply corrupt. There's no gentler way to put it
>> and more people have got to accept it as a fact by now.
>>
>
> Actually, even now, there is an amazing number of people who truly
> believe that they can "forgive and forget", naively assuming that
> Microsoft will mend its ways if we only give them a chance.
Oh, no... it's worth than ever. IDC flogging virtualisation in the press just
moments ago in the press. It's absolutely appalling. It's like a full frontal
assult on people's mind. The EC is hopefully watching this.
--
~~ Best of wishes
"One smaller motivation which, in part, stems from altruism is
Microsoft-bashing."
--Vinod Valloppillil, Microsoft
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1510068k total, 734464k used, 775604k free, 56852k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
|
|
