Lars D. Noodén wrote:
How can we get some input about this from StarOffice folks?
So far all we're hearing is the MS sales reps version of the story.
There are a fair number of ubsubstantiated assertions but nothing
independently verifiable.
It does look like MS was also able to shoot down an open source based
FOI project and will replace it with their own, presumably locked into
their platform or formats somehow.
It also looks like the department will be locked into MS
ActiveDirectory which is MS' answer to Novell NDS or Kerberos+LDAP,
but with interoperability and scalability problems. This and the
other MS products really raise questions about the ability to maintain
any amount of system or data integrity. With DRM activated, all
activities will be monitored by the DRM services and anyone with
access to them, which according the the EULA is at *least* MS or its
designated representatives.
Where is the review mentioned, who organized, funded and supervised it?
What is the background of David Stirling, the head of IT there at the
time?
-Lars
As I'm always one for conspiracy theories, let me suggest the following ...
Microsoft sees governments as a major gatekeeper to markets. It works
both ways. If a government is pro-Microsoft, they can open up
considerable ( government department ) markets to Microsoft, as well as
giving their blessing to businesses that use Microsoft software ( not
that they need it, but anyway ... ). If a government is anti-Microsoft,
they can block entry to considerable ( government department ) markets,
as well as giving their stamp of approval to businesses to use
open-source software.
Now consider that Microsoft will use *any* tool at their disposal to
protect 'their' markets. This includes illegal activities such as bribes
as well as legal-yet-questionable tactics such as practically giving
their product away ... just to keep their foot in the door. If Microsoft
charged 2% of the retail price for Office, this would most likely sway
all but the most principled open-source advocate. Face it - there are
still interoperability issues, and users will always turn their noses up
at anything that they perceive as being inferior - whether it is or not.
Given enough monetary 'incentives', the choice to fall back into
Microsoft's clutches becomes easier and easier.
Now throw into the mix the recent scare-mongering over terrorism. Surely
Microsoft would use this to their advantage:
"In this age of terrorism, law enforcement agencies around the world
must secure their data using the latest Microsoft DRM technologies
available", etc, etc.
I'm not at all surprised that the Scots went back to MS Office. The
article linked from Slashdot when the story broke mentioned something
about increased support costs. I find this explanation unpalatable.
Having converted my workplace from Office 97 to StarOffice 5.2 (
interesting choices ... those days make me shudder ), I know how much
was involved in additional support costs: practically nothing ... and
certainly nothing after people settled down ( couple of months ).
Something other than 'support costs' was at work in the Scottish case.
--
Daniel Kasak
IT Developer
NUS Consulting Group
Level 5, 77 Pacific Highway
North Sydney, NSW, Australia 2060
T: (+61) 2 9922-7676 / F: (+61) 2 9922 7989
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
website: http://www.nusconsulting.com.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
