On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 11:08 +0100, Paul Tansom wrote: > On Fri, 2005-04-01 at 00:43 +0100, Robin Green wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 11:03:24PM +0100, Graham Seaman wrote: > > > > > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/03/31/ms_kingston_epayments/ > > > > What they are doing is encouraging local government to > lock itself even tighter into a single vendor setup with proprietary > software. This means that it is an even bigger piece of work to change - > both since all the 'shared' software is dependent on the Microsoft > infrastructure this will have to be extensively rewritten in order to > facilitate any migration away from Microsoft.
Looks like it may have been too dodgy even for the government to swallow - Shepway District Council (together with Kent Uni) put up a proposal for another open source repository, but this time both free (unlike LASC) and without dependencies on proprietary software (unlike Newham's MS-based one): http://www.shepway.gov.uk/council-government +democracy/councils/modernisation/collaborative/unique.asp And the ODPM has just agreed to a set of 'open source' proposals: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/04/uk_government_backs_open_source_drive/ which since they are to be co-ordinated by Shepway DC presumably includes the repository... Graham _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
