Linked by David Adams on Sun 11th Jul 2010 19:43 UTC
Microsoft U.K. government staff suggested replacing Microsoft Corp. operating systems on computers with free alternatives in response to a call for ideas for Prime Minister David Cameron's cost-cutting drive.
Thread beginning with comment 433173
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Not likely
by Vanders on Sun 11th Jul 2010 22:59 UTC in reply to "Not likely"
Vanders
Member since:
2005-07-06

Move like this requires stronger drivers than just cost savings


Not in the current economic situation it doesn't.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Not likely
by Laurence on Sun 11th Jul 2010 23:19 in reply to "RE: Not likely"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"Move like this requires stronger drivers than just cost savings


Not in the current economic situation it doesn't.
"


Even in the current economic situation as the sort term costs for switching to Linux would be more expensive:
* retraining non-technical staff
* retraining IT staff
* rebuilding thousands of workstations
* testing thousands of applications
* and the massive amount of man hours wasted on red tape, meetings and project management.

And lets not forget that the current workstations already have XP licences - so it's not as if they have to pay that much at the moment.


The real saving in switching to Linux will be the long term. But governments (and particularly Britain's local and national governments) are notoriously bad for taking the long term plan - regardless of how much smarter and/or cheaper it works out.


Having worked in local government for many years, I really can't see this change happening. At best it will be a consideration, but more likely it's nothing more than a "pie in the sky" idea.

Edited 2010-07-11 23:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Not likely
by deathshadow on Sun 11th Jul 2010 23:40 in reply to "RE[2]: Not likely"
deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

I was going to post this big long rant, but you covered everything I was going to say.

Of course with my experiences with linux as a desktop OS, I don't see it as a good long term plan either given what a total tinkertoy it remains with every application stuck in 'catch-up' mode or being pale comparisons to their commercial counterparts.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Not likely
by dylansmrjones on Mon 12th Jul 2010 02:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Not likely"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

* retraining non-technical staff
* retraining IT staff
* rebuilding thousands of workstations
* testing thousands of applications
* and the massive amount of man hours wasted on red tape, meetings and project management.


These costs are the same kind of costs as you have when upgrading to a newer version of MS Office or Windows. And the retraining is grossly overestimated in regard to non-technical staff. Actually it is much cheaper to retrain non-technical staff to OpenOffice from Office2003 than it is to retrain the non-technical staff to Office2007 from Office2003.

Retraining the IT-staff can be quite expensive, but there are other and cheaper solutions. And planned correctly the expensive will be self-financed in less than four years. Considering how much money is wasted on inefficient proprietary solutions due to incompetent planning there is simply no basis for claiming particularly high costs for switching to GNU/Linux or *BSD.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Not likely
by l3v1 on Mon 12th Jul 2010 09:57 in reply to "RE[2]: Not likely"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06


* retraining non-technical staff
* retraining IT staff


I'm a bit tired of such "reasons", and they've been around for a long time. This attitute is very negative and will only hurt [and has been hurting] OS development for a long time, while strengthening the monopoly of large OS vendors. The rigidity towards adapting to new operating environments should not be acceptable as it is today. The computing field is not a static industry, it's in constant change, and that should be calculated in work plans for longer periods of time. There is no 50 year long operating cycle here, IT staff and users/workers should be expected to be willing and able to adapt to changing scenarios. If one's reasons are the stiffness of their workforce, then they have the wrong management combined with the wrong workers. I know I sound a bit over the top, but I stand by it.

Reply Parent Score: 5