Hi :) Moving to OpenSource for a type of product is a one-time major migration but it can be done in baby-steps.
Staying with proprietary systems ensures that a similar level of disruption is guaranteed every 3-5 years as companies need to sell their new product. No baby-steps, just disruption. Favouring 1 US company at the expense of all the rest does seem annoyingly inevitable but it's not particularly new. At least now it is more transparent. But even so, a lot of US companies and organisations choose OpenSource particularly for servers, "mission critical" machines, networking and infrastructure. Regards from Tom :) ________________________________ From: webmaster for Kracked Press Productions <webmas...@krackedpress.com> To: users@global.libreoffice.org Sent: Sat, 6 August, 2011 14:17:58 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] There goes Open-Source in the White House On 08/06/2011 07:43 AM, Tom Davies wrote: > Hi :) > Yes, hence the use of TCO (=Total Cost of Ownership). > > Macs usually have a much lower TCO than MS because systems are less prone to > malware and need less maintenance. Also they are a status symbol so who cares > if it actually works or not? > > TCO is not just licensing and re-training costs but includes a ton of other > factors. Such as time taken to roll it out across a large number of computers > along with patches, updates, settings. New or updated Support Contracts or > in-house IT Staff training. > > > Of course OpenSource can usually mitigate against the re-training costs by > allowing products to be installed alongside existing& competing ones allowing > migration in a series of steps > 1. Old system is kept as default so people can play with the newer one and > slowly get used to it. Training for a percentage of staff in rotation. > Roll-out can be done over a period of time. Compatibility checks. > > 2. Newer system is made default but older one is still available, just more > difficult to get at. Follow-up training. Again this switch can be staggered > across the organisation rather than all-at-once. > > 3. Older system stops being installed on newer or refurbished machines. > > Costs will be higher, particularly in the 1st stage which can push people into > rushing it which ramps the costs up even more. Imo the 2nd stage is the one > worth giving the most time to. The first stage needs a fair fraction of that > time just to make sure things will work and that there are enough trained >people > to help colleagues if there is trouble but it's only at the 2nd stage where > people will really take it seriously or even notice it at all. > > > Elected governments are seldom interested in longer term results. They need > fast results in order to get re-elected. It's tricky to get a longer-term view > without compromising important values. The Uk attempts it reasonably well but > it's far from perfect. Anyway the only relevance that sort of thinking has is > on how to set-up our own BoD and i think that's better discussed on a different > list. > > > Regards from > Tom :) > > > > > ________________________________ > From: planas<jsloz...@gmail.com> > To: users@global.libreoffice.org > Sent: Sat, 6 August, 2011 4:25:14 > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] There goes Open-Source in the White House > > On Fri, 2011-08-05 at 20:53 +0000, toki wrote: > >> On 08/05/2011 05:57 PM, upscope wrote: >> >>> our government is looking for big budget cuts. One would be replace all the >> MS stuff with open source software. >> >> >> If the united states government, or the government of the united kingdom >> ruled today that effective 1 January 2012, only FLOSS may be used by the >> government, and closed source, proprietary software was banned, the >> budget savings would, at the earliest, be visible in 2016, and probably >> not until 2020, or even 2025. This is simply due to the unbreakable >> contracts various software vendors have with those governments. >> Contracts that requires the vendors to be paid, regardless of whether or >> not the product meets the contract specifications, assuming it is >> delivered in the first place. >> >> Long term, FLOSS saves money. Short term, it doesn't save money, and can >> be described as costing money. >> >> jonathon >> -- If Bing copied Google, there wouldn't be anything new worth requesting. >> >> If Bing did not copy Google, there wouldn't be anything relevant worth >> requesting. >> >> DaveJakeman 20110207 Groklaw. >> > Actually changing to another application/OS, etc will require a learning > curve at the beginning. The advantage that FOSS has is the primary cost > to using is the learning curve in most cases. I think often the actual > costs of switching forget if I switched from LO to KOffice I have a > learning curve, I do not know KOffice so I need to learn its quirks to > become proficient. If a purchase is involved it just adds to the cost. > > Jay Lozier > jsloz...@gmail.com I started this thread saying that with a guy at the helm that was a MS high executive and he would not be the one who would nudge the people under him towards using non-MS packages. Yes, switching from MS Office to LibreOffice will cost time in man hours to learn how to use it instead of MSO. Yes, there will be costs to "export" all of MSO complex formatted files to version that are 100% readable by non-MS packages. Yes there are a lot of different costs in switching even if the software is free. I agree that having the original software and the new open-source one sitting side by side on the same machine may help. Having all new or refurbished machines include "only" open-source versions could help. The big issue is to always spend the time and effort to train people in the use of these new options. I did not switch to OOo/LO from MSO over night. As I learned to use open-source versions, over paid ones, I slowly stopped using packages like MSO in favor of the open-source replacements. The final "blow" to MSO was when I decided to use Ubuntu as my default desktop OS. In the end, if we want our local, regional, or country governments, to use open source we need to voice our support for it. The more people who tell our governments that we want to see them use open-source packages, the more likely that they will hear what we are saying and see if it can be done. If our elected officials do not do what we want them to do, we elect others we think will. As stated before, the issue of long term contracts for MSO and other packages can be a problem. But if and when those contracts are up for renewal, we need to tell our governments to not renew them. If they are not, over time all of these contracts will go away and then there will be none in the way of using open-source alternatives. -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted -- For unsubscribe instructions e-mail to: users+h...@global.libreoffice.org Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/ Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/users/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
