on 05/18/05 16:18 'M. Fioretti' wrote:
I think that you have no exact idea of how most big companies and big
public administrations work. I'm *not* saying the list above does
always make sense, but it *is* how many big organization decide.
Private individuals and small businesses are an entirely different
situation, of course. Ditto for single, largely autonomous departments
or offices of a bigger organization.
Actually, I have a very good idea how large companies work. I have held
IT management postions in two Fortune 500 company and a privately held
company that ranks right in the middle of that pack. Your arguments and
points are just the reason I was questioning the math - poor assumptions
will get us nowhere. Fast. Besides, until your timely post, the only
topic *was* the math.
OOo is no where near ready for corporations. Not ones that aren't
in direct competition with Microsoft anyway. That's the only reason
IBM, Sun, and Novell use OOo - they don't want to use Microsoft.
Exactly. Sad but exact. I do agree that OO.o is ready for prime time,
but only for somebody starting from scratch or has (at least in
theory) non-profit goals (ie lawmakers). Not for corporations who have
thousands of gigabytes worth of existing files to keep in use, and
have not written in their mission statement to _not_ use the office
suite of a competitor.
I don't agree. I have seen organizations toss GroupWise and Lotus Notes
out the door in favor of Microsoft Exchange in close to a hearbeat, in
spite of Gigabytes of messages that got munged in the process because
there was no clean way to migrate between the proprietary formats. Among
those organizations is one of the Fortune 500 I worked for. The reason
for the change? $$$$$ - not ease of use, features or anything else. If a
company sees a fiscal advantage to switching to OOo, they'll go.
oldgnome
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
