Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] A Couple of New Articles in The Financial Times Cover and Praise GNU/Linux

Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> ____/ Mark Kent on Thursday 20 March 2008 11:52 : \____
> 
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> ____/ Philip on Wednesday 19 March 2008 20:40 : \____
>>> 
>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Related:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did IT work: Putting Linux on desktops
>>>>> 
>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>> | While Linux servers are now commonplace, the desktop version of the
>>>>> | Linux operating system has been slow to penetrate ? particularly in
>>>>> | enterprise workgroups.
>>>>> `----
>>>>> 
>>>>>
>>>
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d637fe7a-8c95-11dc-b887-0000779fd2ac,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2Fd637fe7a-8c95-11dc-b887-0000779fd2ac.html%3Fnclick_check%3D1&nclick_check=1
>>>> 
>>>> My experience is that the CIO has to have a "real" companies supporting
>>>> "their code". Seems like he wants a scapegoat top go after if it flubs,
>>>> even if it is internal IT's fault. For this they are willing to pay
>>>> extra for.
>>> 
>>> Yes, but it's a myth. They just need to read the Windows EULA and other
>>> similar EULAs of Microsoft products.
>>> 
>>> By the way, more articles about Linux keep coming from the Financial Times
>>> (just spotted more). What on earth of going on? :-)
> 
> s/of/is/
>  
>> I have a slide I use for this, it's essentially the "cost of blame".
>> Politics in large organisations is based to a great extent about being
>> able to blame someone else when there is a problem.
>> 
>> There is a big fat business opportunity there *now* for companies to
>> start offering openoffice.org support, they will be able to rake in the
>> "blame" cost from their customers, and both the customer and they will
>> benefit from being on open platforms, where the customer owns their data
>> and services.
> 
> I saw it a while ago (can't remember well and the context). A manager openly
> said in an article that he needs someone to blame/sue in case something goes
> wrong. Apparently that is now a selection criterion for software.

Oh, it's been a criterion for as long as I can recall.  It's entirely the
reason why the shilcosystem used to refer to Linux distributions as "DIY"
and support as "kids in garages" and so on; it was all about giving the
impression that there'd be nobody to blame when things go wrong (things
always go wrong, especially when there're vested interests around to
make sure that even the smallest problem is blown to vast proportion),
whereas "professional" software has someone to blame.  It's about people
protecting their own careers, rather than any kind of altruistic interest
in wider corporate success, in the main.

> 
> "Can I sue?" [clue: look at the Windows EULA]
> 
> 

A lot of companies use a third-party to manage their desktop
infrastructure, even if its Windows in Intels.  Whilst they might make
licence payments to Microsoft, they also make Ops & Maintenance (support)
payments to other companies in order to keep it all going.  That means
that if there are problems, they can take them up with the support
company.  Whilst still paying for their licences, of course.

-- 
| 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!       |


[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index