On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 01:43 +0000, Stuart Sears wrote:
> Phillip Chandler wrote:
> > On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 14:06 +0000, Simon Capstick wrote:
> >> Does anyone believe the government will actually follow through
> >> with this one?
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7910110.stm
> >>
> >> Simon
> >
> > You must have missed this bit :
> >
> > "Open source software will be adopted "when it delivers best value
> > for money", the government said.".
>
> Have you read the actual document this refers to?
>
> http://www.cio.gov.uk/documents/open_source/090224opensource.pdf
>
> I particularly like this part:
>
> <quote>
> The Government will, wherever possible, avoid becoming locked in to
> proprietary software. In particular it will take exit, rebid and rebuild
> costs into account in procurement decisions and will require those
> proposing proprietary software to specify how exit would be achieved.
> </quote>
>
> ...that sounds remarkably like a commitment to open standards to me, or
> at least taking the cost of migration into consideration when deploying
> non-O/S software. That may well affect the 'value for money' criterion.
>
> If this opens the door for more open standards, then marvellous.
>
> Game On.
>
> oh and this bit:
>
> <quote>
> Where there is no significant overall cost difference between open and
> non-open source products, open source will be selected on the basis of
> its additional inherent flexibility.
> </quote>
>
> just one more, I can't help myself :)
>
> <quote>
> [...] Where appropriate, general purpose software developed for
> government will be released on an open source basis.
> </quote>
>
> > Thats a cop-out clause.
>
> No, it's not. It's paraphrased/quoted at best. I am not a government
> apologist, but this is a remarkable step forward and very positive.
>
> All that's really required is that they assess open source solutions
> in the same context as closed source and that they justify how they
> eventually spend our money. This can only be a good thing. They are not
> promising to change all their desktops to Linux (or any other open
> source O/S). In fact I would be absolutely gobsmacked if they ever did.
>
> > Ive used Linux for quite a while, and thankfully picked up a lot of
> > stuff.
> >
> > But what support do you have for Linux ?
>
> > 1) - Forums.
>
> Not at a professional level, for anything beyond the simplest things.
> Besides, google first :)
>
> In large organisations, it's 'call the helpdesk'.
>
> > 2) - Canonical Paid-for support.
>
> *ahem*. Linux does not only mean *buntu.
> Canonical provide just one of the many options.
>
> Red Hat support services are in general excellent
> Admittedly I'm biased, I work for the company, but I do speak to a lot
> of customers. :).
> Then there's Novell (and of course, even Oracle these days).
> Plus anyone else who wants in, but those are the main players.
>
> Any proper Enterprise-level roll-out provides some form of paid support,
> SLAs and so on, if only to cover somebody's a***. It mitigates the risks.
> With Open Source, that's usually most of what you pay for (that and ISV
> / OEM certifications etc etc).
>
> > 3) - Your IT department if they are savvy enough about Linux.
>
> They are in many public sector organisations above a certain size.
> Perhaps not at the school IT technician level (although in some cases,
> perhaps even there).
> Once again, this is why we have support agreements and escalation
> procedures.
>
> Just my 2p worth. I could go on. In fact I have.
>
> Flame-retardant suit at the ready. :)
>
My last comment. We are talking about the UK Government here ? Do you
actually believe anything they say ? Saying they are going to use open
source software is one thing, but actually going the whole hog is a diff
matter. They say one thing, which has two meanings, the one we think
they are saying, and the one which will be a cop out if it goes wrong or
doesnt work.
Id love to see it work, but on the condition that we dont get another
fiasco like the NHS computer upgrade.
