On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, John McCreesh wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 19:52:11 -0700 (PDT)
> mslicker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > I paid for StarOffice back at version 5.0 and find that the 5.2 version
> > handles MS Word documents very well, including the graphics. It seems to
> > me like they broke a few things in the OpenOffice version and it will
> > take them some time to fix it all. That's understandable being that they
> > are modifying it to use GNOME desktop componants. Once fixed, the work
> > will have been well worth it.
>
> I hated the 'intgrated desktop' in SO - OOo has got rid of that, and the latest
>release is as good as if not better than SO was. It's also ideal for deployment on
>LTSP - once the first user has loaded it in the morning, it's available in memory for
>subsequent users. Try dosing that with MS-Office!
I did too. I think the desktop was universall disliked but StarDivision
didn't want to change it because in their view it presented a common
desktop across platforms which was one of their main strategic selling
points. It's kinda also like KDE developers default KDE to single click
icons because of this philosophy that people have been trained to use
double-clicks while single clicks would have been simpler. I really think
most people would prefer double-click but their stubborn philosophy goes
against what most users want. The demand to fix this was so strong that
they eventually did make a double-click optional, but not by default in
their release.
>
> > Large to medium organizations will find conversion to StarOffice very
> > difficult as training costs will outweight getting the software for free
> > and as users are likely to revolt en-mass.
>
> I don't think there is any evidence to prove this - as most users use only 10-15% of
>the functionality of MS-Office, migrating is no big deal.
>
This is simply unquestioned by IT decision-makers and trainers at large
institutions. The simple little things that you or I take for granted are
really big stumbling blocks for many people in organizations. Also,
whether or not retraining is easy, the costs are still quite high and few
training institutions support it in the localities that most organizations
operate. Training the average corporate employee is often a challenge
that must be taken one key stroke at a time.
Furthermore, corporate departments are often tied to Microsoft Access
databases--something for which there is no viable alternative in the free
software world (yet). Perhaps Rekall is the closest thing. This issue
can be overcome in various ways (such as Citrix) but it definitely must be
dealt with.
> [snip]
>
> > - Market with targeted mailings inviting businesmen to technology
> > demonstrations.. They need to see with their own eyes what the LTSP-based
> > solution can do. Small businessmen like to see neat tricks and big
> > businessmen like to see solutions that significantly reduce time and risk
> > spent on dealing with wide-ranging problems. Both types are very open to
> > new ideas under such conditions.
>
CIOs are those close to them do tend to get those kind of free things, but
I don't think they measure up to the ass-chewings they also tend to get
for failed projections on ROI. These kinds of decision-makers are always:
(1) Suspicious of the promises of ROI from new kinds of solutions. They
constantly look for the hidden and untold costs and technical issues
to come.. Because they constantly get bitten by the unforseen. If
your solution includes a small scale pilot period (that goes
well--which takes a LOT of interaction with the customer) and if you back
your guarantees with hard and clear loss saving measures then you probably
will get your chance, regardless of how "alternative" the solution may
seem. This is because CEOs are often pushing to find initiatives that
will win them brownie points with the board of directors.
(2) Trying to reduce their workload--primarilly in terms of time. If
you can clearly demonstrate anything that substantially saves him/her
time, then you have a sale--guaranteed. The first thing that they
(correctly) perceive as consuming their time are unexpected technical
glitches such as things not working correctly or not integrating with
existing systems very well. When a solution is integrated, they do NOT
want to hear about it anymore.. They essentially want things that consume
their attention to go away. It's as simple as that...and very
strong. And anything that provides this benefit for their subordinates
most likely also does for them. No news is wonderous satisfaction with an
installed solution and will generate great praise and many
strong recomendations to other potential corporate customers.
> Here is the real differentiator. I would in a big corporate who receive
> the full treatment from MS - 'off the record' briefings, 'free'
> 'consultancy', 'educational' trips across the Atlantic... You can't
> finance that on open source.
When the two pionts I mentioned are equal between two potential solutions,
then the free things would likely break the tie... But the fact is,
they'll often get those free things whether or not they buy that vendor's
product. Honestly, they more things while reviewing a vendor's solution
than after accepting it. At that point the vendor tends to rather forget
them except where it comes to billing or offering new products. The
economic and nasty aspects of the deal turn up after the dotted line has
been inked.
--Matthew
>
> John
>
_______________________________________________________________
Have big pipes? SourceForge.net is looking for download mirrors. We supply
the hardware. You get the recognition. Email Us: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-discuss mailing list. To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help, try #ltsp channel on irc.openprojects.net
