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 <
webmaster@krackedpress.com>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
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<jslozier@gmail.com>
To: users@global.libreoffice.org
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
jslozier@gmail.com
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:
users+help@global.libreoffice.org
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
jslozier@gmail.com
--
For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+help@global.libreoffice.org
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
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.