- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Help Me Go Mano a Mano with Microsoft
|
|
|
Comments (7)
Glyn Moody is going to duke it out with a MS rep over the whole OOXML fiasco. The reader comments are chock-full of great references and advice for anyone interested in this, or who might need to approach it in the same way. There is even good general advice for recognizing and countering MS propagandizing and turfing:
That would be a good rhetorical strategy if your arguments are burdened by damming facts:
1: Try to sound reasonable in hopes that a zealot will go all shrill and winey, if they do be nice sounding and dismiss them as a zealot.
2: If their argument is sound and fact based try to change the subject.
1: Try to sound reasonable in hopes that a zealot will go all shrill and winey, if they do be nice sounding and dismiss them as a zealot.
2: If their argument is sound and fact based try to change the subject.
It's a bit strange why the discussion isn't about the 'cost' of proprietary Microsoft solution vs. open source solution though. Many fine case studies are available, and the EU has set up a project where municipalities can ask questions about OSOSS and cooperate and such. Then why would the borough ask Microsoft to do the research (probably unfamiliarity with OSOR.EU project - preceeded by IDABC) or be interested in OOXML? I'd ask myself.
Microsoft has one (or two) case study (the one of this borough) where a municipality still chooses for Microsoft, while at the same time OSOR has tens of case studies with municipalities choosing open source. Most of the OSOR case studies though are about freedom / anti-lock in, and not about costs.
Anyway, I tried to help Mr. Moody and I'm eager to find out where all of this leads to.
Microsoft has one (or two) case study (the one of this borough) where a municipality still chooses for Microsoft, while at the same time OSOR has tens of case studies with municipalities choosing open source. Most of the OSOR case studies though are about freedom / anti-lock in, and not about costs.
Anyway, I tried to help Mr. Moody and I'm eager to find out where all of this leads to.
Any OS needing anti-virus before it leaves the factory is, by definition, defective.
Any OS having ancestors that lacked real privilege systems is, by definition, insecure.
These are my first "talking points" when discussing the merits and drawbacks of operating systems. The rest tends to pale in comparison, or relate back to them.
Any OS having ancestors that lacked real privilege systems is, by definition, insecure.
These are my first "talking points" when discussing the merits and drawbacks of operating systems. The rest tends to pale in comparison, or relate back to them.
The fact of the matter is that Windows is a Legacy Operating System, It owes far too much to the past. A recent encounter with Windows 2008 Server, drove home the point to me that Windows servers are really little more than glorified desktop computers. When you understand this it become clear why the LSE systems failed under load.
> When you understand this it become clear why the LSE systems failed under load.
The didn't just fail under load. They never even came close to achieving the promised performance.
The didn't just fail under load. They never even came close to achieving the promised performance.
Quoting:The rest tends to pale in comparison
Not when it comes to Newham, they were only interested in cost, and 'new features'.
How does this sound to you:
Quoting:Steel says: “I am more convinced than ever that, while open source had some value as a concept, when it comes to the new collaboration products, such as Windows Live Messenger for instant messaging and Office OneNote 2007, Microsoft offers huge potential in transforming the public sector. Open source will always lag behind Microsoft in terms of innovation by at least two to three years.”
The one who did the open source part of the competitive trial also sounds kinda lame to me:
Quoting: Eddie Bleasdale, Linux consultant and director at Net Project, which set up Newham's open source trial, said, "We always advocate a heterogeneous IT environment when it comes to Linux and Microsoft.(here: http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2003/11/24/198861/cou...)
"Adopting open source would not make savings for Newham in the short term because the council uses Microsoft Exchange 5.5, and this does not interface with Linux. Therefore the council would have to upgrade its systems to cope, incurring extra costs."
Doesn't sound like they did a fair trial to me.
Munich did. They found out using open source software was only a small amount more expensive than the proprietary solution in a term of the first five years, and after that open source would become cheaper. Considering Newham had a frame of reference of ten years...
Anyway, I added some more valuable links to Moody's list, at least I hope.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post