Microsoft Audits UK Council To Prove Cost Effectiveness

A Masquerade writes "When Microsoft's market position was threatened by projects within the UK government evaluating open source solutions, it chose an interesting way to fight back. Computer Weekly has a piece by a Microsoft manager explaining they're paying for an external audit of the IT services for a specific UK local authority, Newham Council, to provide a cost justification for Windows and Office on the desktop, as opposed to an open source solution. The Register comments that 'if Microsoft succeeds in holding on to Newham, it will have knocked a considerable amount of wind out of the pilot schemes before they've even kicked off properly.'"

Comments

This is what we all want.

[bl1st3r]

I want to see an unbiased proof that "MS IS SO MUCH CHEAPER" like they keep ranting about. If it actually proves they are, I want it HEAVILY documented. This could be the deciding factor to stop hating MS's apparent FUD tactics. They might really be more cost effective than Linux and other Open Source solutions...

*cough* if you tack on the 699$ SCO tax *cough* ;)

Re:This is what we all want.

[cscx]

Here you go.

Re:This is what we all want.

[smallfeet]

This compairs MS to J2EE. Not that there is anything wrong with J2EE, but there is a lot more to open source then J2EE and some is a lot cheaper to develope and maintain (Zope, PHP, etc).

Re:This is what we all want.

[Deusy]

I want to see an unbiased proof

That's what we all want to see.

The problem is that there is really nobody unbiased to do this type of analisys.

You have pro-Microsoft (including themselves), Free Software zealots, and normal people.

Obviously, pro-Microsoft peeps will always interpret and flip data to make it look like it's by far the best option.

Obviously, Free Software zealots will favour Free Software although their reports tend to be more realistic due to the fact there usually isn't "the collective" ensuring that it has to be ridiculously favourable.

Then there's everday, normal peeps. They quite simply don't care. Microsoft software, for all it's problems, gets the job done and is familiar. Moving to Free Software may solve many problems, but the move itself will be months (or even years) of hassle and the new software initially unfamiliar. It may be cheaper but, hell, so is cycling into work.

Before you can get decent reports you need interested people who are genuinely impartial. How many of them are there in the IT world?

Anyway, that's my ANALisys of the situation.

Re:This is what we all want.

[FatherOfONe]

Ok, here is my beef.

Microsoft must make money to pay for marketing, sales, developers, accountants, lawyers and support. This cost isn't insignificant. Free software is... well free. Now if you consider that you need internal I.T. people for either solution how can Microsoft or any software maker compete.

Yes I know that a vendor can "add value" by making things easier, thus needing fewer I.T. people but aren't we talking about governement workers here. In the U.S. most of these people are the most basic of users. One or two tasks is all they do. Heck most of our people here use dumb terminals.

Lastly I would argue that even if Microsoft buys this ONE government off, it cost them significant time and resources, that only hurts them in the long run. This appears to give government agencies a choice. So Microsoft looses it Monopoly. That forces them to have to lower their prices. Either way they loose. So in the long run they have less dollars to combat FREE software. This makes it harder and harder to buy off other people.

So in short I guess I am saying. It is hard to compete with free.

Anyone selling expensive browsers now days?
Anyone selling expensive web servers now days?

Soon...
Anyone selling expensive office suites?
Anyone selling expensive NOSes?

Possibly later...
Anyone selling expensive databases?

Re:This is what we all want.

[Anonymous Coward]

cscx your an id10t. What he means is that he wants to see a study that from the initial implementation of a Microsoft system to the present the total cost that includes downtime, virus outages (which open source doens't have), time spent having to update every workstation by hand (yes even your beloved winxp and w2k)... the list goes on and it is most decidely against Microsoft.

Re:This is what we all want.

[Anonymous Coward]

More people should cycle to work.

Re:This is what we all want.

[riskyrik]

"Get's the job done". My employer chose MS many years ago as the standard platform & software to use. On my department we develop new applications and for nearly each project we loose an enormous amount of time (& thus also money) trying to solve problems that could otherwise be solved more quickly if we only could see the sources & how they work. With MS the job gets surely done but I feel that with Open Source we could move ahead faster. Most of us know that a changeover would be difficult , especially during the first year. But we are gladly willing to pay this price knowing that maybe half of our problems can be solved more quickly or may dissapear altogether.

Re:This is what we all want.

[aflat362]

You are assuming that these normal people are familiar with Microsoft software and not with Linux (or other Free Software).

What about non-zealout like computer people? I personally could care less about what platform I worked on. I guess its because of this fact that I don't care to do a CBA on MS and Linux.

Re:This is what we all want.

[aastanna]

Well...you can make the argument that programmers are shooting themselves in the foot developing free software, because if they are successful they will cost software companies business and ultimately result in unemployed programmers.

The thing is though if you're just doing straight coding, following a design for some software company, there's not much reason someone in India can't do it cheaper.

In the end free software is a good thing. If you want to keep working as a programmer in a first world country you'll probably eventually need to find a job where you are doing designs of custom software for a business anyway, and if that business is using some future version of Linux, OpenOffice, gcc, etc. they'll have more money to pay you.

Re:This is what we all want.

[llf4nlp]

Whether the results of this "audit" are credible or not depend on how it is done, and what other data is available.
If OSS advocates, or better businesses and governments themselves collected and published data as to the costs of running MS software - including installing patches, and generally dealing with viruses, worms et. al ...

What would that show about costs? How would it compare to the costs of transitioning to OSS??

Re:This is what we all want.

[sydlexic]

J2EE is a bloated joke. I'm sure MS is more than happy to have it as a perceived benchmark for Linux middleware. It just makes their job so much easier.

Re:This is what we all want.

[Jason Earl]

Spot on. If software becomes a cookie-cutter affair then I lose my biggest advantage over the folks in India. I am available, on site, and can create software that fits the business precisely. Free Software gives me the ability to create custom standards-based applications that are at a price that is comparable to the one-size-fits all variants that the big software companies are selling.

Re:This is what we all want.

[BuckaBooBob]

Well.. They didn't say they were paying for a unbiased study :) Since they are paying for it.. I am sure they chose someone who has vested interest in the MS platform in some manner :)

Re:This is what we all want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then there's everday, normal peeps. They quite simply don't care. Microsoft software, for all it's problems, gets the job done and is familiar. Moving to Free Software may solve many problems, but the move itself will be months (or even years) of hassle and the new software initially unfamiliar. It may be cheaper but, hell, so is cycling into work.

Getting people to care is always hard. Linux grew initially because there was a backlog of people who already wanted a solution to either MS lockin or UNIX cost. But all the growth since then has been from the apathetic "peeps" realizing, one by one, why Linux was a good idea for them. And so will the growth continue.

Re:This is what we all want.

[sumdumass]

maybe some good can come from this. can you imagine a major government influence demanding that thier document/spread sheet/other money grubing formats actually be allow to be opened and viewed by competing freeware product and makeing sure that the microsoft products can open and view standard based files of the same. in essense this could stop the propriatary lockouts of competing formats. neither alternative need to be able to create the files, jusy be able to take on sent to them, open it, and then edit it in thier own (open source what ever) alternative format and be able to produce a file that doesn't get magled or destroyed in the process of sending it back and allowing the microsft app view it/use it

Re:This is what we all want.

[drooling-dog]

Microsoft is going to cite (and probably exaggerate) the costs of re-training employees who are already familiar with their own software, and likely they'll also make fat assumptions about how much software has to be rewritten to replace arcane features that aren't duplicated in open-source solutions. Some of these points will be valid, but then they are points that will always favor the existing regime and if we weight them too heavily no change would ever take place.

They will also leave out long-term costs that arise from their market dominance and their ability to control their customers. As we all know, you don't pay just once for MS products; you pay again and again and again, just as frequently as Microsoft decides you should. If not for the open-source alternatives, things would be considerably worse for all of the MS shops out there, so they should at least be grateful that the alternative exists, whether they might consider making the leap or not.

It's a little beyond me why anyone on principle would prefer closed to open source software. Even if you'll never look at (or understand) the code yourself, others certainly will. This in itself guarantees that the software will continue to serve - and not manipulate - its users. It is a Good Thing to know verifiably that the software you are using is not really serving another master or out-right screwing you behind the scenes. Governments and corporations should seriously consider open-source solutions on this point alone.

The Microsoft-vs-Linux debate is only partly about short-term costs. Maybe the bigger issue is whether you feel more comfortable in a regime of centralized or distributed power. The MS partisans aren't merely reluctant to learn new tricks, as some have said here. They are also greatly disturbed by a world with no central, monolithic, and hopefully benevolent authority that they can (wisely or foolishly) trust without question. Most of the FUD we see comes precisely from that dark, scary place.

Re:This is what we all want.

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that's the case - when you deal with a 'black box' API, you simply read the docco and do what it says. If it doesn't do what it claims, you jump up and down on them.

With open source software, firstly you don't generally get any documentation (look at the code), and generally the code isn't what you're used to - so you end up spending as much time working with it (if not more due to lack of full docs), only now you're complaining that the code is too obscure to work with, or doesn't do what you *think* it should do.

Seeing the source isnt a panacea for your problems. Chances are, the issues are with your design, or skills. eg. Many, many people work with MS without complaining that they can't see the source code.

Re:This is what we all want.

[Daytona955i]

I'll start by saying I am an open source fan. I've been using linux for about 7-8 years. A couple years ago I bought a mac laptop and for the past 2-3 years I've been using Linux and OS X exclusively. Only delving into the windows world occasionally to fix family members computers...

That said, my feelings are that it would cost more initially to switch from an existing M$ environment to an open source environment. My reasoning is that you will need to train people to administer their new linux boxes as well as train the workers to use linux. This is vs. people continuing to use their windows machines which they are used to so there is no real training involved.

Now what you have to look at is how much will it cost to upgrade to XP (if you are still running 2000 or 98) or if you are already running XP, to Longhorn? Is there going to be a significant learning curve? I know Microsoft has a habit of changing where things are from an administrators point of view but not as much from a users point of view. So you will need to train your administrators some to deal with the new OS. Now if you had switched to Linux, the location of things usually stay the same. (Of course different distributions place certain things in different areas but we'll assume you aren't switching distrobutions) There may be some new functionality that you may need to learn but the basic structure is the same. So I'd say moving from 98->XP->Longhorn would be more costly in terms of training than moving from RedHat 6 -> 7 -> 8.

Setting up your linux desktops may take some time. You need a word processor, probably a spread sheet, and whatever other programs you will need in your office environment. Most likely if you are using windows you already did the reasearch and purchased all the things you need. This same research would need to be done for linux. The biggest disadvantage you have is that the program you need may not be available for linux. Of course you also have to ask yourself is this really necessary? The dependancy on Word is created by people using word. Is there another solution? Of course so sometimes alternatives need to be researched. The advantage of using linux is that there are more open source programs available for linux than there are for windows. As a result, you are more likely to find an open source solution that you can use which will cost you nothing to purchase. Training your users and support will cost you but you would have the same problems if you are using windows. (as most people who have worked for a help desk will tell you)

So really I see that the initial investment will be costly in terms of training and evaluating/deciding on new solutions. However, you will never need to pay for an upgrade ever again (for your OS at least) as well as no per-sear licenses. So in the long run you will make your money back. When will this happen? I don't know, I haven't really tried to put numbers on these things. The values will also change depending on your needs. I'd guess that most companies will make up this cost and start seeing a savings in about 5 years, especially if M$ goes to a leasing scheme. Now if you are a company starting from scratch, since you still have to evaluate solutions for whatever OS you go with, the costs here are roughly the same. Training people may cost more because most people have word and excel at home. However I don't think it is significantly more because most word processors and spreadsheets and categories of software are roughly the same. All word processors deal with formatting text and unless you plan on switching from word to LaTeX, there isn't much of a difference. As for administrators, you can hire people with Linux/UNIX experience as opposed to someone with Windows experience. Thus the training is probably going to be less because my experience has typically been that Linux/UNIX admins generally know more than the HighSchool dropout you have maintaining your windows box. Plus with linux you can use the terminal to effectively administer another lin

Re:This is what we all want.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would also like to see the net worth of the auditors before and after the reports.

Re:This is what we all want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice try, smart guy. Next time remember where the "i" goes.

analYsIs

Proof: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=analisys

QED

Re:This is what we all want.

[hellswraith]

That is a bunch of FUD. I work with MS products daily, and the problems I have are caused by me and my code (and or design). I think maybe 1 or 2 problems in like 7 years were bugs in the MS software side. Sure, we chased our tail on them, but in the end, there was a work around already posted on the MS site until the bug was fixed. Having that central location (MSDN) to get that information is what is seriously lacking for Linux development in my opinion. Plus, we only probably spent 3 days total on those couple problems. That isn't to bad in my book. I don't think switching to Linux development is going to help in this regard. If you are running into undocumented problems in MS code, then you will probably be running into undocumented problems in Linux code as well.

Re:This is what we all want.

[BuckaBooBob]

This company is Quite Tainted :)

http://www.cgey.com/alliances/microsoft/index.sh tm l

I predict the outcome from thier study will be Windows is drastically cheaper..

I don't know why anyone puts any ammount of weight on these types of studies.. They are allways in favor of who is paying for them.

I allways wondered who paid for the study that came to the conclusion that Research causes cancer in rats :)

Follow the money.

[secondsun]

If I am paying someone money to make me look good, they damn well better make me look good.

If M$ is paying a metric assload for them to look good they are going to look fscking fabulous.

Re:Follow the money.

[Alan Partridge]

"a metric assload"

What on Earth does that mean?

Re:Follow the money.

[OverRated]

It sounds like a lot of coin that will fit in :)

Re:Follow the money.

[Alan Partridge]

What?

Re:Follow the money.

[signals42]

I think it's something like 1.18 imperial assloads.

Re:Follow the money.

[sharkey]

Smaller than a regular assload, since it has to share space with the British Standard Rod.

Newham?

[KillerLoop]

So Microsoft pays up for the audit and they got to choose the place the audit takes place.

Is Newham some kind of poster-boy location for Microsoft? I mean hey, hell would freeze over if this "audit" shows anything than a clear advantage in costeffectivness for Windows.

Re:Newham?

[pubjames]

I mean hey, hell would freeze over if this "audit" shows anything than a clear advantage in costeffectivness for Windows.

What the hell do you think it is going to show, given the circumstances?

Re:Newham?

[Builder]

Newham is actually quite an open-minded borough, well at least as far as their IT services team go. They have been quite instrumental in pioneering new IT technologies including Open Source solutions in the UK, and many other boroughs look to them for guidance.

Pity they're also the leaders in deployment of citizen surveilance solutions as well, and many other boroughs look to them for guidance on that too.

Re:Newham?

[Haeleth]

Somehow, "Today Newham, tommorow the world" doesn't haver the same ring to it.

It doesn't need to.

The correct quote, for the situation, would be "Today the world, tomorrow Newham". Which has a certain je ne sais quois, even if it turns out to be a j'espois que je ne savrai jamais...

Re:Newham?

[TomV]

Is Newham some kind of poster-boy location for Microsoft?

According to the Register story cited in the slashdot article above, Newham's more of a poster-boy location for properly audited financially responsible public sector IT in the UK. Hence the interest in what they find, as they have a reputation for actually doing this sort of exercise properly.

We'll get a reasonably trustworthy temperature reading on hell when Cap Gemini Ernst & Young complete the audit and provide some figures.

Whichever way the result goes at least it'll give us some real objective figures to compare rather than the assumptions from both sides which are about all we have to go on at the moment.

tomV

Newham?

[Sci_Fox]

Somehow, "Today Newham, tommorow the world" doesn't haver the same ring to it.

Here's

[Pingular]

the original article about the 'UK test(ing) open source waters'.
Paticularly of interest is this: 'We can be sure that there will be lots of meetings going on inside Microsoft, because that is just what happened when the German city of Munich decided to use open source software in preference to Windows. The result was a secret offer of massive discounts.'
In Munich they offered discounts (although still failed), now this... If it isn't anti-competition I don't know what is.

Re:Here's

[thenerd]

In Munich they offered discounts (although still failed), now this... If it isn't anti-competition I don't know what is.

MS offering a discount in response to not being chosen is, in fact, a prime exame of competition. It is competition at work. Whether it is 'secret' or not is immaterial.

Re:Here's

[nordicfrost]

MS offering a discount in response to not being chosen is, in fact, a prime exame of competition. It is competition at work. Whether it is 'secret' or not is immaterial.

No. Competition would be if the playing field was dominated by many small companies adjusting their prices to find a common, sustainable price. If you are an actor with oh, say 90% of the market and lower your prices drastically when a competitor enters, it's called dumping. The fact that they did it in secret is probably due to the stricter competition rules in Germany.

Re:Here's

[Daniel Phillips]

MS offering a discount in response to not being chosen is, in fact, a prime exame of competition. It is competition at work.

When profits in one market segment are used to subsidize sales in another it is called "predatory pricing" and is illegal, particularly when practiced by a monopoly.

Re:Here's

[mpe]

Competition would be if the playing field was dominated by many small companies adjusting their prices to find a common, sustainable price.

Including some companies entering that market and some companies leaving that market.
In the case of offering a contract to government they might make a secret bid...

If you are an actor with oh, say 90% of the market and lower your prices drastically when a competitor enters, it's called dumping.

There is also the "Microsoft Tax" effect. Since it is very difficult to get hardware without it being bundled with Microsoft software.

Re:Here's

[DataCannibal]

If it isn't anti-competition I don't know what is

You only prove that you don't know a lot about local government finances in particular, and much at all about business in general, if you consider that the purchase price is the ony thing that you need to consider when deciding on corporate purchases.

Anto-competitive my arse.

Re:Here's

[Luscious868]

Then explain the XBOX or MSN ....

Re:Here's

[freakmn]

Or any gaming console... AFAIK all console manufacturers lose money on the console itself, hoping to hook others into buying their overpriced games, which make up for the profit.

The only way to win, really

[Dancin_Santa]

If you want to compete with Free Software, the only way you can truly compete is at the cost of use level. As far as operating systems and application suites go, the alternatives are all pretty much equal.

But once you take the fight to cost, the winners and losers get separated right quick. Mac, out. Linux, in. AIX, out. Windows, in. Solaris, way out. HPUX, out. Herd, it's almost there, any day now.

And so with the finalists Linux and Windows you have a neck and neck race. Linux wins in the licensing part, but Windows wins out in the cost of use. The total TCO is pretty much equal, so it's really a toss up at this point.

It may seem like a huge win for Microsoft if they can pull this TCO win off, but it's only one government department and the reality of the situation is that every office is different and has different needs. A company based on hacking and running high-powered servers needs Linux. A company based on being productive and interfacing with customers and customer data needs Windows.

So you can't judge the fitness of an OS on TCO alone, especially as TCO is variable among application domains.

Re:The only way to win, really

[Anne Thwacks]

If you want to compete with Free Software, the only way you can truly compete is at the cost of use level.

If you really want to compete, you have to explain how a closed file format that changes every 18 months is a good thing. That will take some serious explaining, or serious bribing. Particularly in government.

Re:The only way to win, really

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the way it is now and Closed Source wins everytime.

Maybe you'd prefer to explain why your application suite doesn't support some feature that Microsoft Office does.

But I guess convincing government to use the substandard solution is par for the course.

Re:The only way to win, really

[malsdavis]

Why is the cost of use less for windows?

I study at a university in the UK where they have a lab full of about 600 Linux desktop PCs, in a lab down the hall there are about 100 Windows XP pc's.

Being quite friednly with the support staff I have on a couple of occasions asked them whether they prefer Linux or Windows and they ALL say that the 100 Windows PC's take up about 80% of their time and the 600 Linux comps only about 10% of there time (the other 10% is persumably spent doing what IT support staff do best ...sitting about whinging about dumb newbies).

From personal experience I have never once had a single small prob with any of the Linux computers ...wish I could say the same about my WinXP computer at home which just 3 days ago suddenly decided logging in was a minimum 20 minute operation!

Re:The only way to win, really

[Anonymous Coward]

99% of the users were using Windows. The last 1% of h4rDc0r3 Linux "hackers" were causing 20% of the disruptions.

You can bet that if one could get rid of 99% of all users in one fell swoop, support staff wouldn't be as necessary.

Re:The only way to win, really

[darkat]

Also if the fact that M$ software will be proven true by umbiased consultants, nevertheless Open source software should be preferred. The problem is the lock-in that the use of M$ software can lead to. Freedom has no price...

Re:The only way to win, really

[Anonymous Coward]

A company based on being productive...

Every company is based on "being productive". You can be productive in Linux just as easily as in Windows.

...and interfacing with customers and customer data needs Windows.

This is the government. If they get Word documents they can't open or something, they can just tell people to use RTF. What are the customers going to do - go to a competing government?

Re:The only way to win, really

[jez9999]

What Uni are you studying at? Ours has 3 Linux labs with a combined total of maybe 100 Linux PCs, but 600?!

Re:The only way to win, really

[Anonymous Coward]

You've obviously never been to Uni, have you? When you go to a computer lab at any reasonable hour of the day, it's almost always 90% full or so. You think the users are going to wait in line for the Windows computers instead of sitting down at a Linux computer? Not gonna happen (and where I went to Uni, the bias went the other way, with people choosing the Unix machines over the Windows ones).

Re:The only way to win, really

[ajr_trm]

If you want to compete with Free Software, the only way you can truly compete is at the cost of use level.

From my experience windows workstations need much more work from "user support" guys than those running linux. In both cases you need a hacker to install and configure software. Allowing people to work on computers with default windows installation is asking for trouble. Properly configured linux box is much more idiot proof than windows one.

Re:The only way to win, really

[Haeleth]

> If they get Word documents they can't open or something, they can just tell people to use RTF.

Which leads us naturally to my current favourite not-joke...

Windows user: "How do I save a document as RTF?"
Linux user: "RTFM."

Re:The only way to win, really

[budgenator]

I have a hard time believing that the tco of a Linux desktop will even be close to the tco of a windows unless the windows boxes are totaly locked down; my experience with XP is its remarkable stable for a MS product until the users start individualizing and getting crap installed from the internet, spyware, the virus/worm of the week ect. Of course this kills the functionality that Ms touts with its FUD. I don't even know where to begin to lock down a winXP box other than simpley setting up an admin account and removing admin privelages from users. Of course that dosn't make any sense unless you get virus protection at $29.95/yr/seat, a firewall program at $29.95/seat, PcAnywhere so the admin isn't running 10 Mi a day to admin the machines ect. In Linux installing with permissions set to paranoid is about as locked down as you can get, and most of the extras that windows needs is all ready in there or un-needed.

OBTW 20 min to log in screen; I'd look for a hardware problem first, then run spybot search and destroy because if it started suddenly, likely something broke, or something installed!

Re:The only way to win, really

[Tim C]

You can be productive in Linux just as easily as in Windows.

Once you've learnt to use it, and adjusted to the new environment and new applications, yes.

For a while after making the switch, though, your productivity is going to take a hit, and that's going to put off a lot of people. Think of it this way - their company pays for the software, so cost is not an issue. What is an issue is getting their job done on time, and if anything is going to jeopardise that, then forget it.

Re:The only way to win, really

[gearry]

And so with the finalists Linux and Windows you have a neck and neck race. Linux wins in the licensing part, but Windows wins out in the cost of use. The total TCO is pretty much equal, so it's really a toss up at this point.

What I would love to see is some accurate, trustworthy numbers in this department, if only for client machines (office suite and web, etc). Anecdotally I know that since August the Windows machines I maintain have required constant patching and attention in order to assure that they remain functioning at a baseline level. That is expensive in terms of required manpower. The Linux machines that I maintain have only required attention when I wanted to add or change capabilities. I have read recent analysis on patching on both systems, but what I have not seen is a comparison that takes into account end user configurations, and not all of the services that are available in the OS. Windows has for the most part required the pathces on ALL platforms. The major linux security issues that I have seen recently were related to services that are not deployed on the majority of end user workstations, and thus were not neccesary in those deployments. Sure, both systems have security, maintainence, and usage cost. My gut feeling is that Windows TCO goes up quickly when you have masses of end user deployments, quite probably at a rate higher than that of the alternatives. I know that there are ways to lock Windows down and to manage mass deployments, but are those methods less costly than the alternatives?

I don't have time to do the analysis (too busy maintaining those boxes). I have not yet seen any analysis that I trust. I know where my experience tends to point.

Re:The only way to win, really

[tomstdenis]

What you forgot to ask is usage. Are these 600 linux pc's going 5% used while the winxp are 95% used?

I know in my college of advanced [re: l33t] technology it's all window'ed up because nobody is smart enough to realize that free software isn't just a catchy name [it's actually free].

My schools board will actually buy site licenses for things like Office because they get a "discount" [for being MSFT whores I presume]. But if that were truly the reason they would just use OpenOffice on GNU/Linux + KDE or so... which has a much higher discount.

Tom

Re:The only way to win, really

[GooberToo]

Why would pcAnywhere be need since it already has remote desktop? For support needs, that's all that is needed. You're other points are well taken and spot on.

Of course, the obvious is, with a MS solution, you have to toss in rougly $500 - $100,000 in extra charges to compare to what you get free with OS. Why the huge range? Well, it depends on what the machine is going to be doing. Just imagine all of the free software you get with OS and then imagine all of the fees and extra support charges you would have to pay if you went with a MS solution.

Then, they need to figure out and add in the rising cost of MS software. They have plenty of trend data. What is the projected cost when it's time to renew? We all know, based on trends, it will only get more expensive. Remember, this is a recurring cost and the window will continue to get smaller if MS has anything to do with this. With OS, there is no recurring cost, other than test and deployment. Both of which, would have to be done with even a MS solution. So, it can be safely ignored or weigh equally on both camps.

Add in the cost of fighting viruses and trojans, and the fact that you have to have more MS admins than Linux admins, it quickly looks very poorly for MS from a TCO perspective.

It would be impossible for any *properly performed* TCO comparison to indicate a lower TCO with Windows. The sole exception would be if the machine uses are very, very meager and they never plan to upgrade their systems. Even then, it would be pretty iffy.

Re:The only way to win, really

[budgenator]

Why would pcAnywhere be need since it already has remote desktop?
Cool, right now I'm upgrading SCO (double YUK) serial line over cat5, to WinXP over ethernet (YUK), and the training synopsis listed PcAnywhere, which made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, like it did the time I saw 5 tornadoes in the sky at the same time. Given its track record maybe we will be lucky and not even need it installed.

Re:The only way to win, really

[gbjbaanb]

fair play to you for admitting I don't even know where to begin to lock down a winXP box, which is generally the issue with /. in the first place - a load of people familiar with linux (if not admins) simply don't know what can or cannot be done with windows.

Try the group policy manager - or on a local PC, Local Security Policy editor in admin tools. A domain admin has a more powerful version of this which can enfore all kinds of stuff. Generally people don't bother - if you screw your PC up, you get a bollocking from IT, but it can lock down the system to the pont you can't do anything but run word and email.

Re:The only way to win, really

[laffer1]

I don't see how Mac is "out". Lets look at a price breakdown between Mac, Windows and Linux. Situation 1: New hardware 600 dollar pc with 100 dollar monitor & windows 600 dollar pc with 100 dollar monitor & linux 800 dollar eMac Hidden costs: Windows - Required anti-virus & maybe a commercial firewall. at least 30 dollars. (plus yearly renewals and upgrades) 1 hour setup time. ( network plus software installs) 10 hours of windows updates Linux - Free, but configuring a linux/unix system takes more initial time. 3 hours of redhat updates (or your favorite distro) Mac OS X system - 5 minute setup plus software installs (comparable to windows). 3 hours of updates if its toward the end of the product cycle (new os a year) Like linux, no anti-virus is required. Situation 2: Existing hardware Windows: 100-200 dollars an upgrade, plus antivirus software upgrade or renewals (at least 5 bucks for virus definitions) required. Microsoft broke compatibility with something to make you buy office XP.. additional costs. (old software doesn't run). IT must learn it. Linux: Free (or pay redhat for free stuff) plus cost to install upgrade. Minimal. No antivirus, old software runs. Mac: 130 for OSX. install time takes about 45 minutes changing 2 cds on an old iMac. Old software runs perfect. No antivirus. Based on these two scenarios, Windows is by far the most expensive. Mac is second and linux is the cheapest. Now thats just physical cost. Software can be free for linux and mac as they both run open source systems and include X11. When you count usability, things get gray. Everyone will argue their favorite platform is the easiest. When you go for productivity, i think windows loses here too. There are new patches everyday.. plus linux and Mac systems don't crash as often. In the end, Windows is the loser. The real choice between linux and Mac OS X is wheither or not you want to run commercial applications. Linux has few. Linux and Mac systems probably have more software available for them than Windows systems. (open source + commercial). The other logical thing to point out here is that Macs CAN run linux. Lastly, I have more of a question.. what do people think of HERD? Is it supposed to replace linux or compete with Mac OS X? (it is a Mach setup like Next openstep and Mac OS X ) I'm just wondering if everyone is happy about HERD or if a GNU civil war is coming between HERD and Linux people.

Re:The only way to win, really

[symbolic]

And so with the finalists Linux and Windows you have a neck and neck race. Linux wins in the licensing part, but Windows wins out in the cost of use. The total TCO is pretty much equal, so it's really a toss up at this point.

How do you figure? Linux and Windows both have the fixed cost of support. There is no licensing associated with Linux (like there is with Windows), so in the case of larger installations, this represents a significant cost savings. Where's the "neck-and-neck" here?

Re:The only way to win, really

[Ilan Volow]

Because the linux community, in all it's approaches to the desktop, has been focused on the systems administrator experience, not the end user experience, as the example above excellently illustrates.

The real value of a comptuer is in how easy and efficiently the end user (not the support person) can get work done minus the cost of work that (mostly the UI) prevents the user from doing. When you get down to it, Windows support and licenses cost nothing compared to the monetary value of the work done with it.

And no, I'm not cheering on Microsoft, I'm lamenting that the Linux community can't advance and think outside of the server box.

Re:The only way to win, really

[Dalcius]

"What you forgot to ask is usage. Are these 600 linux pc's going 5% used while the winxp are 95% used?"

Most unis don't bother buying 600 machines for one OS unless they're getting *very* heavy usage of that OS. I'm not so worried about this as I am the idea that the admins might be spending 80% of their time hand-holding the tards who will only use Windows and know next to nothing about it.

That said, *nix is much easier to lock down from security problems and user problems as well. The admins might cost more (IF you can't find a happy hacker student willing to do it cheap), but you'll need less due to less user/security problems and when issues DO come up, they'll be much more competent (read: fast) at fixing them. A herd of MCSEs is just that: a herd. There are awesome Windows admins out there too, but I think it's safe to say that they've got a little more on their plate.

Re:The only way to win, really

[Strudelkugel]

I'm lamenting that the Linux community can't advance and think outside of the server box.

That seems to be the problem with OSS. So far most of it is "Gee, this is a better Windows than Windows" IBM used the same approach with OS/2. OSS has more enthusiasts than OS/2 ever did, but I'm just not seeing the innovation I would expect. Lot's of cool ideas, but many are partially complete, vary w/regard to installation, etc. TiVo is one of the best uses of Linux I have seen, but it is also has proprietary elements. For someone to justify a large development expense, there has to be a big return. Proprietary models provide that - OSS requires a low cost/hign volume commodity model.

Re:The only way to win, really

[mpe]

I have a hard time believing that the tco of a Linux desktop will even be close to the tco of a windows unless the windows boxes are totaly locked down; my experience with XP is its remarkable stable for a MS product until the users start individualizing and getting crap installed from the internet, spyware, the virus/worm of the week ect. Of course this kills the functionality that Ms touts with its FUD. I don't even know where to begin to lock down a winXP box other than simpley setting up an admin account and removing admin privelages from users. Of course that dosn't make any sense unless you get virus protection at $29.95/yr/seat, a firewall program at $29.95/seat, PcAnywhere so the admin isn't running 10 Mi a day to admin the machines ect.

Then hope that an application you need dosn't require "local admin" in order to work.

In Linux installing with permissions set to paranoid is about as locked down as you can get, and most of the extras that windows needs is all ready in there or un-needed.

Also it helps that in Linux regular users cannot mess with things vital to the functioning of the machine.

OBTW 20 min to log in screen; I'd look for a hardware problem first, then run spybot search and destroy because if it started suddenly, likely something broke, or something installed!

Possibly Windows roaming profile "feature" decided to include something it shouldn't...

Re:The only way to win, really

[mpe]

Once you've learnt to use it, and adjusted to the new environment and new applications, yes.
For a while after making the switch, though, your productivity is going to take a hit, and that's going to put off a lot of people.

This is just as much an issue with Windows though. Because Microsoft likes everyone to "upgrade" fairly frequently.

Re:Re:The only way to win, really

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you
to consider: (pulling down a diagram) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a
Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor.
Now, think about that. That does not make sense!

Why would a Wookiee - an eight foot tall Wookiee - want to live on Endor
with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do
with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with
this case! It does not make sense!

Look at me, I'm a lawyer defending a major software company, and I'm talkin'
about Chewbacca. Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not
making any sense. None of this makes sense.

And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberating
and conjugating the Emancipation Proclamation - does it make sense? No!
Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense.

If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.

This isn't a news piece...

[canfirman]

...it's a PR piece. The whole article puts a "Microsoft is better" slant on the whole issue of Microsoft vs. Linux. Also interesting to note who the author is..."Matt Lambert is director of government affairs at Microsoft"

Since this audit is being paid by Microsoft and being done in conjunction with Ernst & Young, you know for sure it will not be an unbiased audit (which goes against auditor independence).

Personally, I'm not holding my breath on a fair and independent audit.

Again MS funds...

[Anonymous Coward]

... going to pretending their products are secure rather than re-reading their code, hmmmm ?

How can Open Source Movement counter such moves?

[thehive]

Though a shrewd move by Microsoft it may prove effective. Since it is very difficult to counter such move by open source. One solution would be that the local open source users groups can prove it to them that open source solution would work out cheaper. any other ideas??

Poor IT director

[akc]

I pitty the poor IT director who said that open source is a no brainer.

There is no way in the world that this audit is going to come up with anything other than in favour of M$. Once that happens the marketing people are going to be all over his bosses.

Re:Poor IT director

[Pingular]

I pitty the poor IT director who said that open source is a no brainer.
Actually the correct quote is 'Open Source a No-Brainer for Developing World', and it was written by Dan Gillmor, as you can see on the first link.

Re:Poor IT director

[Builder]

In this case, one of the chief ICT guys for Newham said Open Office was a no-brainer, not open source in general.

Efficiency of UK local councils

[Burb]

I know nothing about Newham specifically, but the perception in many parts of the UK are that many local councils are not well run. It might well be that a half-decent audit would find potential savings whoever the sponsor and whatever the IT system in use.

My local authority caused a stink when it bought expensive laptops for all the councillors - because it was later suggested that these machines were hardly ever used. Small example, but such is local politics.

Also, and I mean no disrepect to anyone in local government IT in the UK, but it's not well paid compared to the private sector - there are plenty of PHBs I guess.

Re:Efficiency of UK local councils

[Komarosu]

As a UK council IT person trying to push Linux into here...i can say its a hard deal. Local councils get a very favourable deal from Microsoft and cause they've been there for a long time its not gonna change soon.

Change takes a long time in local councils and its going be a VERY long time before we go to Linux servers, never mind linux desktops.

Re:Efficiency of UK local councils

[Deusy]

I know nothing about Newham specifically, but the perception in many parts of the UK are that many local councils are not well run.

It's quite easy to prove your theory.

UK councils are indirectly controlled by the government in that the majority of law and local investment initiatives (think public services) comes right from the top. The government is poorly run, ergo local councils - Newham among them - are poorly run.

The scary thing is, look at how fumbling and incompetent some of the more senior politicians are. If they're that bad, how bad must the ones be that only make it as local council members?

Re:Efficiency of UK local councils

[Alkarismi]

I disagree.

There are more councils than you know that *already* have Linux SWARMING over their servers. That is where the battle is at the moment. The desktop will come later...

Re:Efficiency of UK local councils

[EnglishTim]

The scary thing is, look at how fumbling and incompetent some of the more senior politicians are. If they're that bad, how bad must the ones be that only make it as local council members?

I think that's probably a bit unfair, as the kind of people you need for local councillorship are probably rather different from the kind you need (or should that be the kind you get?) for national government.

Re:Efficiency of UK local councils

[perly-king-69]

Your logic is bizarre. You could equally argue that because George Bush is 'intellectually challenged', he is the top man in the USA, ergo all Americans are stupid.

If they're that bad, how bad must the ones be that only make it as local council members?

This is founded on the spurious assumption that all local council members aspire to become MPs. It's also at odds with the previous statement that if the government was better run, then so would that council even if the local council members remained the same.

Re:Efficiency of UK local councils

[sql*kitten]

I know nothing about Newham specifically, but the perception in many parts of the UK are that many local councils are not well run.

You know, back in the day, the council (i.e. the people who have the political authority and are elected, as opposed to the people employed by the council to empty bins, etc) were all unpaid volunteers, doing their bit for the good of the community (and their own prestige, of course, but there's nothing wrong with that). They tended to be "pillars of the community" for example local small businessmen, like the town butcher, the baker etc, and before joining the council they'd run their family business for at least couple of decades so they knew the ins and outs of getting stuff done.

These days, being a councillor is a job, complete with salary and benefits. The kind of person who does it is very different: now most councillors are career politicians without any experience whatsoever of the "real world". The old-style councillors saw local government as a means to an end, and their job as to provide a stable, pleasant environment for people to go about their lives and their business. The present kind see local government as an end in and of itself, and the local residents as a mere source of tax to fund the grand ambitions of the councillors - and if it goes wrong, just jack the taxes up.

The quickest way to get local government back on track would be a wholesale cull of everyone on a salary.

Also, and I mean no disrepect to anyone in local government IT in the UK, but it's not well paid compared to the private sector - there are plenty of PHBs I guess

You can't look at salary in isolation, you have to look at the complete package. Government workers enjoy near-absolute job security and lavish taxpayer-funded pensions on retirement. Private sector workers are better paid, sure, but are far more likely to be laid off, and their retirement funds are invested in the market increasing their risk.

Re:Efficiency of UK local councils

[Deusy]

Two words for ya: sar-casm

Re:Efficiency of UK local councils

[perly-king-69]

How many times am I going to fall for that one on /.?

Its only cheap if your time is worthless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Machines at my organisation (can't say for obvious reasons) were recently upgraded from Windows NT to Windows 2000, and Windows 2000 takes around three minutes to boot up on a Celeron 500 with 128 Mb of RAM. Windows NT on th eother hand takes around 20 seconds. And at 6 UK pounds an hour that adds up after a while. Mandrake 9.2 is the fastest booting linux I have used so far, which is faster than Windows NT so hopefully I can convince them to switch (It has all the apps we need, and I don't have any LG drives either).

Re:Its only cheap if your time is worthless.

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows NT also doesn't have plug and play, so it isn't searching your system for new hardware on boot-up.

Windows XP on the other hand takes me 14 seconds to reach the "Press ctrl-alt-del to login" screen starting from right after the CMOS "beep" so I don't see the problem there.

Re:Its only cheap if your time is worthless.

[Burb]

Of course, that's only relevant if you reboot frequently. (Please everyone, put aside the obvious /. meme about Windows and the BSOD). On the other hand, if you are talking about a couple of minutes per day to start work then it's comparable to, say, an extra toilet break.

Re:Its only cheap if your time is worthless.

[tbone1]

Of course, the key question is: how long does it take to copy a 17MB file? Particularly in Soviet Russia with Natalie Portman, for one, welcoming the new hot grits overlord for YOU, insensitive clod.

Re:Its only cheap if your time is worthless.

[ultranova]

Yes, I quite agree. I only saw the BSOD a few times in the Dark Years before switching to Linux. Usually the Win98 would simply stop its input/output functions... Screen would stop updating, and keyboard/mouse would stop working. In my experience, SD (Silent Death) is much more common than BSOD (Blue Screen of Death).

Who do you want to pay

[madsen]

When choosing an MS solution you pay your money to MS. If you choose an open alternative you are more or less able to choose to whom you want to give your money. You could pay RedHat or some other distributor or you could employ the people on site (and even fight unemployment that way...)

Re:Who do you want to pay

[GerardM]

According to Microsoft man you pay a company for the services as "the industry now accepts that Linux is commercial software: it carries a significant acquisition cost and is typically bundled with suppliers' proprietary software and services."

Blatant FUD. What you have are two tracks: the track that is highly published where companies like RedHat, SUSE, IBM et al score big implementation trajects. They are the same type of trajects that would also have a similar consultancy aspect regarless of the infrastructure. The other track is more low key, this is where a system here, a system there is converted to another platform generating the climate both intelectually and emotionally towards the next step. These tracks exist regardless of platform.

The second track does not need expensive consulting and expensive maintenance contracts in an Open Source environment. They need time and sweat.

Thanks,
Gerard

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[anaplasmosis]

Using phrases like "shareware Linux" and "kernel level programming in VB" plus stating that Linux doesn't have features that it patently does, demonstrates more than adequately that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Shame on you for calling yourself a "consultant". You're an MS weenie, pure and simple.

Re:How can Open Source Movement counter such moves

[16K Ram Pack]

One solution would be that the local open source users groups can prove it to them that open source solution would work out cheaper. any other ideas?

They don't have time for that! They're too busy writing Yet Another Tiki/BitTorrent client.

Personally, I'm trying to get people to think about open source and am in the process of putting together a CD presentation pack of OpenOffice for MPs.

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[FinestLittleSpace]

Did you manage to find the 'on' button on the linux box in the end?

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[the_womble]

You've been trolled.

Exactly the same post has appeared several time in the last few weeks.

A more cost effective solution..

[Anonymous Coward]

The whole Microsoft thing would be more cost effective if they were removed from the face of the earth. Like if all the employees quit because they suddenly gained a sense of shame. And if all the California fires were suddenly concentrated around a single complex in Redmond at One Microsoft Way.

Overnight computer systems would be freed from a tyranical overlord who is trying to bleed the world dry with his twisted iron claw called "Windows". Alternatives would be used that weren't Microsoft by many too uneducated to even look before they knew about the free alternatives ("well, we always bought Microsoft before... so I guess we'll keep on doing it when they force us to upgrade again").

Think of the BILLIONS that would be saved the world over! Millions of happy users BitTorrenting RedHat or FreeBSD ISOs to each other and downloading all the software they would ever need. With the money everyone would save this could kick-start the economy!

(Note: This is only wishful thinking, please do not actually set fire anything, as we now know Apple Mac G5's are present and we don't want a friendly fire incident. :)

Re:A more cost effective solution..

[spectecjr]

The whole Microsoft thing would be more cost effective if they were removed from the face of the earth. Like if all the employees quit because they suddenly gained a sense of shame. And if all the California fires were suddenly concentrated around a single complex in Redmond at One Microsoft Way.

I'd rather the California fires didn't, thanks. The apartment complex I live in is spitting distance from there. (Hey, the rent's cheap... but I don't think it's because the place is a fire hazard).

Re:A more cost effective solution..

[Alan Partridge]

Can you plunder their Wi-Fi?

Re:A more cost effective solution..

[Anonymous Coward]

My friend, it is up to you. You are the Chosen One. For all your life you've lived quietly, not realising your fate, but now that the evil hordes have installed Windows on your village's PC you have no choice but to go out into the world. Your journey shall be long and hard, filled with random battles and bizarre dungeons. You must gather a party of mis-matched but trusted companions, and do some serious levelling up. Then proceed to the Final Dungeon that is Redmond, and enter the labyrinth. This will be the toughest part of your journey, the enemies stronger, the savepoints fewer and further between. And at the heart... at the heart of the dungeon lurks the Final Boss, the Lord of Evil, William Gates III, with shedloads of HP and special attacks that can lay you low with one blow.

Good luck, you'll need it.

Re:A more cost effective solution..

[ultranova]

So, how are the hostage negotiations going ?

What do they mean by 'audit' here?

[fuzzbrain]

An audit is most commonly meant to be just about verification. Eg an external audit of a company is meant to verify for the shareholders that the financial accounts present a 'True and Fair View etc.' I used to work in public sector audit for a competitor of Ernst & Young & I remember that there used to be things called 'Value for Money Audits' but these were really just disguised ways for audit departments to start doing higher-value consulting work. It's possible I suppose that Ernst & Young may come up with an objective answer, but I wouldn't count on it. I'd feel alot more comfortable if Microsoft had hired the Audit Commission (who could in turn have hired Ernst & Young) to carry this out. This is one 'audit' that I'd like to see audited.

Re:What do they mean by 'audit' here?

[tarquin_fim_bim]

They mean that they going to catalogue all the instances of where Newham Council have breached licences and sue them, very dumb move by Newham.

Re:What do they mean by 'audit' here?

[budgenator]

They are not going to audit anything, at least if you define an audit as measuring hard numbers generated in the real world; at best they are going to generated estimates based on a overly optimistic MS numbers vs. overly pessimistic Linix numbers.

Want to get real TCO, take all the users in 2, 20 person depts, give them both comperable OS/Application training, then track everything for five years, that'll give you an idea on TCO. My guess is that just doing the training would drop the MS TCO 20% from their current MS TCO, sort of the difference between peeps thinking they know what they are doing, and knowing or knowing that they don't know.

Isn't it great,

[tarquin_fim_bim]

the mighty power of the buck, they've picked on one of the poorest and run down infrastructures in the UK, they're not stupid, only a totally incompetent company would fail this. Here's hoping.

It might be a cynic

[rf0]

but how do you think this is going to end up? Of course MS is going to be shown to be more cost effective as all they have to do is lower the cost of licenses and then make some noise about TOC.

Of course it doesn't matter that the people who are in local goverment already know open source solutions so support wouldn't change a huge amount but at the end of the day we all know how this is going to go. I would like to be surprised but I somehow don't think I will be

How can the people doing the audit really be truely independent if paid by the larget commerical software house in the world?

Rus

Re:It might be a cynic

[Alan Partridge]

Table Of Contents?

Re:It might be a cynic

[Builder]

Actually, I'm pretty much willing to bet that the cost of training is where this party will end. Despite the closeness between Open Office and MS office, government drones will insist on being re-trained before they switch. The unions will back this.

The costs of this retraining will MORE than eat up the savings made by not paying licence fees.

What will probably happen. Not.

[pubjames]

I can just imagine the scene in a few months time:

A meeting between representatives of Microsoft, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, and Newham Council:

Consultant: We have finished our audit, and our conclusion is that it would be cheaper for Newham Council to use Open Source Software.

MS rep: What??

Consultant: Yes, the situation is quite clear. It would be cheaper to use OSS.

MS rep: Oh! We weren't expecting that! But fair's fair I guess! [Shrugs]

Newham rep: This meeting has been quicker than I thought it would be. Shall we go to the pub for a lunch-time pint?

Ulterior Motive . . .

[Dausha]

Does anybody remember when MS audited several school districts in the Oregon/Washington area? Well, they weren't the auditor, some other company was. As I recall, the districts refused to comply with MS's push to move to its latest license, so the audit happened and the schools were (essentially) ordered by MS to either switch to the new license or be charged millions for license violations.

The districts instead, as I recall, switched to Linux.

What if this audit has a true goal of finding license violations?

Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[Alkarismi]

Newham is not the only (or even the biggest!) Council involved in the UK's trials. Even *if* this report can be *manipulated* to make Microsofts solutions *appear* cheaper, they have many, many more headaches ahead of them.

There are a *lot* of behind-the-scenes developments in Open Source deployment in the Public Sector in the UK. They *will* be hitting the news in due course. When they do, Newham will be the *least* of Microsofts problems.

Everyone stay calm...

Re:Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[pubjames]

Even *if* this report can be *manipulated* to make Microsofts solutions *appear* cheaper, they have many, many more headaches ahead of them.

It looks like you haven't had much contact with accountants...

There is no "if" about it. The report will say MS solutions are cheaper.

I used to believe that accountancy was an exact science. It makes sense that it should be, doesn't it? But when you start dealing with accountants, you quickly learn that it isn't. In fact, it's quite shocking how much leeway an accountant has to move figures around, and that there are no clear-cut rules for many things.

This report will be based mainly on estimates. How else are they going to do it? They are looking at a theoretical situation - what if Newham Council changed to OSS... At the end of the day, an esimate is just a guess, and you can estimate on the high-side or on the low-side. The consultants doing this audit are just going to do the estimating based on the outcome that's required, i.e. that MS is cheaper than OSS.

Re:Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[Alkarismi]

I've had waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much contact with accountants 8^)

You're right though, there is no "if" about it.

That's not my point however.

One, Everyone already *knows* these CGEY consultants are on the payroll (believe me, there's even huge cynicism amongst employees *inside* CGEY!). This is a bankrolled whitewash - It *will* be as much a PR disaster as MS's other whitewashes.

Two, Newham is not MS's biggest challenge in the UK public sector. There are bigger ones in the works that they wont have such an easy time bankrolling their way out of.

Trust the Future!

Re:Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[azzy]

Hmm.. reading between the lines... it seems that the parent poster is planning a bombing campaign against MS in the UK!!!!

That or they just have inside governmental info about OSS.

Re:Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[Alkarismi]

We don't do bombs 8^)

Re:Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[azzy]

Awww damn.. er... I mean phew!!

Re:Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[Alkarismi]

=8)

Shiny new Free Software migrations hurt MS waaaay more than bombs.

p.s. send us a CV when you move on from University of London...

Re:Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[azzy]

Eeep.. I've been tracked down... gotta hide!!

p.s. the CV of anyone in particular? ;)

Re:Don't Worry - Be Happy!

[Alkarismi]

Hey, you weren't that hard to trace!!!

Oh, I don't know, surely you know *someone* in the UK with some Free Software skills ;)

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[malsdavis]

Do you not think this could be due to your own lack of experience setting up Linux systems? Personally I (and the vast majority of support staff I have ever spoken to) find that Windows 2k boxes are far more likely to break down. This is also backed up by the vast majority of research which points to Linux being a much more stable OS. I think the reason Linux is not the dominant OS in large companies at the moment is not down to marketing or technology but down to consultants who can't be bothered to sit down and learn a new system and would rather just slap an extra few hundred thousand dollars onto their fee for "software costs" rather than investigate switching to Linux.

External & paid

[gl4ss]

So not that much independency. The one who has need for this study should pay for it to cut ties to the sides evaluated.

Linux cost of use

[dizzyPhoenix]

Anyone care to enlighten me/us why the Linux cost of use is categorised as 'high'?

I can't see training as an issue, Linux can be easily configured to make the transfer quick and painless. Unless there is a horde of applications already developed to run under Windows, where is the issue?

Disclaimer: I don't have any experience administering corporate/governamental networks

Re:Linux cost of use

[Anonymous Coward]

It's largely an admin thing.

A low paid admin(read incompetent retard) can set up and do something resembling running windows machines.

Any *ix machines require more competence of the people in charge of running them.

I'd be willing to bet that losses to viruses and being hacked get chalked up as things the businesses have no control over, rather than directly caused by the money they're saving using 'discount' IT staff.

Re:Linux cost of use

[bogado]

Also it is important to remember that if your requirements is something like a "windows+office" sorta of thing, all you need is a few clicks default instalation of almost any linux dist.

Any person that is compeent enougth to install windows to a clean machine is able to that. Is not that hard.

Re:Linux cost of use

[budgenator]

must be becausse the catagorising people figure that

1. installing linux is more difficult than installing windows, ever do that lately, Linux realy is much easier now, and its legaly cloneable.

2. Linux requires more training because it's new/different, of course most people that consider themselves computer literate, I'd rate as computer illierate irregardless of OS.

How can a supplier independantly audit something??

[malsdavis]

An IT supplier paying for an independant IT audit? The chances of such an audit saying anything but Microsoft is cheaper is like research by the Dr. Pepper makers stating that actually Coca-Cola does actually taste better than their drink.

It's how you spin it.

[pubjames]

If you want to compete with Free Software, the only way you can truly compete is at the cost of use level.

Yes, because when it comes to cost, it's easy to spin it whichever way you want.

Bit of background

[Anonymous Coward]

Some background to this:

This is about Linux on the desktop. Newham are (for example) already running their website (and intranet) on RedHat CCM (APLAWS) on Linux.

I believe Newham's IT Director is an OSS fan. Linux on the desktop across an organisation is still pretty radical; one of the main drivers is security. Newham have been sold the idea by the great Eddie Bleasdale (UK 30-year I.T. veteran and Linux evangelist) of Netproject, who have also sold it to South Yorkshire Police. Netproject is a 2 and a half man outfit taking on Microsoft and doing a lot of damage. M$ response to South Yorkshire was deep discounts.

So, unless M$ have an in with someone higher up than the I.T. director, it's not clear this audit will achieve its goals.

Disclaimer: I don't work for Newham or Netproject.

Re:Bit of background

[Alkarismi]

Eddie's not the only one doing a lot of damage to Microsoft in the UK.

I don't work for Netproject either 8^)

(and I don't post anonymously)

Peace

Re:Bit of background

[netdudeuk]

Nah, I think that you will find that it is the WEST Yorkshire Police. They for sure announced such a move within the last year or so. I should know as well as I used to work in the IT Systems team there and I knew the top IT guy. As it happens, he first mooted the idea of using Linux to me before I left which is just over six years ago !! Is that forward thinking or what ?

They do it a lot

[bacon-kidney-pie]

Microsoft have audited or threatened to audit two companies I have worked with in the last year or so. Many companies dont really know what they have paid for or even how many computers they own. These audits are great for people selling inventory management software.

Assumptions

[Anonymous Coward]

"...the interviewees who had evaluated Windows Server 2003 found it to be more stable and scalable than its recent predecessors, and so, for this study, we assumed that the product would be as stable as the Red Hat Linux operating system version..." =)

Council splerge

[Anonymous Coward]

My ex-boss is a council man, he's been pushing Halton for open source for years, the amount of money spent on licences for windows, office and the like is amazing, I'm suprised that people don't protest after all it is our tax it's comming from, to be fair windows it well established. but I feel that Linux is not that diferent, most people arn't bias as to what os they use, the click here does this is a little extra for them to learn but no more so than say a new version of windows would be. The most trouble councils are likly to face is the problem of unknown suport and technicaly availble people to set it up and fix it should anything go wrong.

But the attraction seems to be the open source bases, the way in which people can take control of thair systems managment, only techy people understand how but my ex boss sure understands what it means.

Price was not negotiable

[PizzaFace]

Computer Weekly reported that Microsoft refused to discount its pricing for Newham beyond its usual government discount. Microsoft was multiply stung when its deep-discount offer to Munich was rebuffed, making the press coverage sensationally embarrassing and giving every government body in the world the idea that it should bargain hard because Microsoft would compete on price against open source.

Microsoft evidently decided, What good is having a monopoly without enjoying monopoly rents? The Newham audit allows Microsoft's handpicked shills to report that "TCO" is lower if Newham's desktops continue to use what the vast majority already uses. Even if Microsoft loses the Newham sale, the audit report will be ammunition against open source in other government agencies, and it will defend Microsoft's profit margin.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[toopc]

Microsoft evidently decided, What good is having a monopoly without enjoying monopoly rents?

And if they offer discounts, they're only able to do so because they are a Monopoly.

Isn't Slashdot Fun?

Re:Price was not negotiable

[Hard_Code]

Charging artificially inflated prices accross the board to subsidize anti-competitive discounts to customers considering switching is completely consistent with a monopoly.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[timeOday]

Know why Ford doesn't offer 70% discounts to people considering a Chevy? Because they CAN'T. Their profit margin isn't that inflated in the first place. The main problem with monopolies is that they can charge whatever they want and people have to pay. No competitive business has 70% profit margins, like MS does.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[4of12]

Since software is becoming more and more of a utility and commodity, I would hope the market would be more competitive than it is.

I don't see posting boards (like the stock exchange) where you can see what the bid and ask price is for 10^n (n=0,..,5) copies of WinXP Pro, who offers them, and prices for software that some people might decide to stop using, such as DOS 6.2, Win 3.1, Win 95, etc.

Yes, I know full well that all the resellers get their supply of Windows from the same one single source. But seeing the prices, fluctuations, etc. would make the inelasticity more apparent.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[sumdumass]

i'm way off topic here but have you seen this same model in the tax code or "taxing scheme". i wonder if this is a play for actually looking like a governemt or if they just took the hint from them? either way microsoft still has yet to pay dividens to it's share holders. buying and selling seems to bew the only way to profit from microsoft stocks. so maybe this efect is less noticable in general because share holders that typically use/purchase microsoft products arent aware of the "true earnings" microsoft makes. instead the just see stock prices inflating.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[TheAncientHacker]

No but thanks for playing. Software (which you might know something about) is like pharmaceuticals. The first one costs a fortune and the rest cost very little to manufacture. Yes, it means that software companies and drug companies have flexibility on how long the want to take to amortize that initial investment but it doesn't mean they don't have to make up those billions. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be playing here and should read a little more before posting anything but post about petrified grits. If you do and then you're just flame-baiting. Feel free to let us know which it was.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[johnnyb]

Drug companies aren't competitive, either. For the same reasons, basically.

The difference is that drug companies have the FDA to help keep their monopoly status, while Microsoft has no such gift.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[CaptKilljoy]

Oh brother, not the old "drug companies are evil because they make lots of money off of human misery" routine again. Who's going to bother gathering the millions for pharmaceutical development without the promise of potential billions? (Even the wonderful altruism that makes up the open source movement has reasons behind it, even if it's making the author feel good about helping others.) Mandating that drug companies not be able to make those billions is just improving the present by cannibalizing the future.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[symbolic]

The Newham audit allows Microsoft's handpicked shills to report that "TCO" is lower if Newham's desktops continue to use what the vast majority already uses.

I hope this includes the cost of constant (and mandated) upgrades.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[timeOday]

Don't you know what "profit margin" means? The cost of advertising, developing software, etc. is why MS's 2002 OS profit margin was "only" 86%, instead of 100%. The profit is what's left over after you pay expenses.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[Just Jim]

Simply wrong. Microsoft has patent law, and copyright law.
Without it their extortion arm (BSA) wouldn't get in the door.

Re:Price was not negotiable

[johnnyb]

Actually, they haven't, with a few exceptions, been using their patents offensively. True Microsoft has copyright law giving them temporary monopoly status over works they create, but that's nothing compared to what the drug companies have.

You see, with Microsoft, anyone with a computer can help put together a solution to a computer problem. Also, anyone can instantly enter the market selling software, just by downloading GNU and selling it.

However, with the drug industry, it takes YEARS to get past the FDA. So, if you can imagine being able to operate a company at a loss for YEARS before being able to enter the market, you can see how the only ones who can do so are the very rich. The barrier to entry is inflated by the FDA's regulations, and no amount of an "open movement" is going to get around that while the FDA is there.

Re:Good news for council flats

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you a recruitee policeman by any chance?

They're spinning this for Joe Suit, not Slashdot

[dunstan]

What's going on here does matter.

Local councils in Great Britain are not IT innovators. They are deeply conservative (small C, sadly) bodies whose IT directors are terrified of appearing on television or in the press with projects which have failed. Hell, some of them only recently stopped doing their word processing on green screens attached to their mainframes.

They have now arrived at the "nobody got sacked for buying Microsoft" mindset, and the elected members who they serve are as nervy about IT projects as their IT staff. They are happy to tip loads of local taxpayers' money into Microsoft because that's what everybody else is doing, and there's no safe alternative. This, well, fear, uncertainty and doubt guides IT procurement in Microsoft's favour. But for cash strapped councils, the attraction of leaving Microsoft behind is great - the money saved could go directly into local services (most likely some pet project which would be a waste of money, but I digress).

So the emerging possibility of basing council desktop IT around free software causes mixed feelings in these people - if they save lots of money they will be heroes, but if the project crashes and burns they will be zeroes. They have done a good job so far of scaring IT directors into thinking that they are taking a big risk going with non MS software: now they are addressing the other part of the equation, and demonstrating that there won't be a big saving.

It doesn't matter that the study is rigged and being paid for by MS: "The Newham Study" will be often quoted as a "professional" study by CGEY, who are a tier 1 player in local council outsourcing in GB.

The question is, can the study be neutered? Sadly this is unlikely as it will be printed on glossy paper and widely circulated. The best outcome is that there will be another study showing a different outcome, so the viewpoint on cost savings will be "mixed".

This is precisely why MadHatter is so significant: Sun are trying to still show major cost savings (though not as much as using a generic free software stack), while reducing or eliminating the possibility of the project crashing and burning.

Dunstan

Reason for Newham

[L-s-L69]

"Add to that the fact that Newham regards itself as (and OK, possibly is) a leader in local government ICT, and you've got a collision of prestige, visibility, money."

Some local govs here in the UK are better at 'puter stuff than others*, the ones that are good tend to influenct the guidelines of the rest.

*One example of this is some london bourghs have security done to guidelines set down by GCHQ others have one guy with an MSCE.

And the joke was on me, apparently.

[lokedhs]

Damn it, reading on I realised that this message, while still funny, has been posted before. Still would like to see it modded to -1 funny.

Additional Work

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Hackney, the next borough over and was wondering how many of the slashdot crew are in the area.

Is there an opportunity to add some consultancy assistance to Newham council e.g. a document containing all the points that should be examined in a fair audit, so that they can do a comparison with what CGEY come up with?

Something that lists:
Training (Users and Admin)
Hardware upgrades needed vs reuse of hardware
Cost of software
Cost of deployment of applications
etc.

Anyone have something that Sir Welsh could hand over to his IT monkey?

- Sredni

Re:Additional Work

[YrWrstNtmr]

Anyone have something that Sir Welsh could hand over to his IT monkey?

Phrases like this are not likely to win over any converts.

Re:They're spinning this for Joe Suit, not Slashdo

[Alkarismi]

With one sentence you've written off 10% of all IT in the UK as 'not IT innovators'. We shall see.

These people are not a grey, homogenous mass of "nobody got sacked for buying Microsoft" drones - you'd be surprised at the innovative spririt that exists in the UK public centre.

The study will be neutered - many times!

CGEY are trying to stick their fingers in a cracked dam. They can stick as many in as they like, that dam's about to break.

Everyone knows Open Source is Microsoft's worst fear, they will also soon know that Microsoft are *running scared*

It doesn't matter how many consultants and skewed, whitewashed reports they buy, the truth will out...

how is the TCO of windows lower when...

[xshader]

how is the TCO of windows lower than Linux when...

1) linux and most software required to run a productive server/desktop is 100% free
2) training programs and cirtification for windows is more expensive

this just doesnt add up. people buy the claim that linux costs more to operate and maintain than windows, but in my experience, my linux boxes just keeps on humming even when i dont perform maintainence for a couple months at a time.

the bottom line comes down to familiarity. if you know linux, that is going to be your cheaper solution. if you hire dumbasses that dont know how to use linux, then you'll end up spending lots of time and money just getting to the point your current windows solution is at.

wake up and smell the coffee, all of you!!!

OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[SgtChaireBourne]

If purchase price comes into play then, OS X is neck and neck with Wintel. The myth that Apple is more expensive has long since been put to rest. If ease of use, ease of maintenance and stability are an issue, then it's a winner by a mile.

Then there's Linux/BSD/QNX + GNU. All of which have Wintel clobbered for ease of maintenance (including stability and security) and at least tied for ease of use.

More interestingly, cities like Turku and Munich got large discounts for even mentioning that they were considering investigating Linux. The mention that Microsoft cannot give discounts anymore implies that they've run out of money to do so. Shrinking revenues as well as accumulated fines and penalties could easily account for this, even when cancelled products and services are acconuted for.

Re:OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you count the fact that you will have to pay for security upgrades on OS X. That is why I call it feeBSD.

Re:OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[DrXym]

Concerning Linux being as easy to use as XP, I would say some dists are close but not there yet.

The article confirms that. It is comparing a preconfigured desktop, presumably with all hardware drivers and networking in place. This might be true of an office environment, but certainly not in the home.

I wonder how Linux would fair if they asked a user to install a driver for example. Or get UT2003 to work.

Personally, the nearest I've seen to XP levels of usability is RH9.0 which is on par with W2K - a good and solid set of admin tools - and an attractive and sparse desktop. But it is pretty weak on the novice / consumer side of things and didn't even install a 3d driver for my NVidia. Particularly weak for all dists is the help system and installing a driver is a joke - if you're lucky you'll get a script to run (assuming you know what a shell is) and if you're unlucky be ready to rebuild kernels.

If OS X can tame BSD so that most people wouldn't even know there is Unix running underneath, then so can Linux. It doesn't stop the pros from firing up a shell (as I do on OS X), but there should be absolutely no need for mere mortals to ever have to touch the thing.

Re:OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[autechre]

But the point is that Linux can be used in a business setting quite easily, as everything will be pre-configured and you won't want users installing/configuring things themselves.

As for a home setting, Linux might not be ready to use for the novice who would want to install a driver or UT2003. But it can certainly be sold pre-packaged as a "Web/email/other Internet services/word processing" machine for those who will only use their computer casually ("Buy the kids a PS2 and keep their damn games off the computer").

The only problem I see right now is that someone might want to install something like a new digital camera, but according to Mac "switcher" commercials, Windows users need to call in the nerds too, right? :) I guess this reinforces the notion that Linux is fine for advanced users and very casual users, but it's the middle of the road that will still have some trouble. The goal, as I see it, is to keep pressing in from both sides towards that middle.

Re:OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[mpe]

The article confirms that. It is comparing a preconfigured desktop, presumably with all hardware drivers and networking in place. This might be true of an office environment, but certainly not in the home.

There are many more computers in offices than in homes. This whole thing is about an office environment. In many office environments the last thing you want are end users messing around with the machines. So much so there is actually a market for third party addons to Windows to stop this.

I wonder how Linux would fair if they asked a user to install a driver for example.

If an office user needs to be asked to install a driver then there is a serious problem.

Or get UT2003 to work.

If someone wants to do this when they are ment to be serving the public then they should be fired.

Re:OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[mpe]

But the point is that Linux can be used in a business setting quite easily, as everything will be pre-configured and you won't want users installing/configuring things themselves.

Which is that vast majority of computers anyway. Here the ability of end users to install software or mess around with settings goes in the "cons" column.

The only problem I see right now is that someone might want to install something like a new digital camera,

How many *new* cameras don't act as USB mass storage devices?

but according to Mac "switcher" commercials, Windows users need to call in the nerds too, right? :)

In many cases even "home" Windows users do this.

Re:OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[DrXym]

You seem to think 'office' equates to large scale corporations with an IT department and everyone running the same hardware. Clearly this is not the case, for the vast army of SOHO workers, legal firms, accountants, estate agents, shop keepers, electricians, printers, architects etc. There are enough of these people that Microsoft have seen fit to sell a small business version of Windows.

Unless Linux can install out of the box, either with the drivers or prompt them where to find them, and provide useful context sensitive help, and hide the advanced options and provide wizards for the everyday tasks, I would not consider Linux ready to replace Windows at all. The article makes it clear that even in a managed environment, Windows still has an edge, so obviously the situation is much worse when the environment is not managed. Now some dists are closer to this goal than others (I use Red Hat 9.0 and like it), but none has approached anywhere near the simplicity of XP or OS X. I would gauge RH9 to be on par with W2K at least on the config side of things.

As for your UT2003 remark, I see you have missed the point. Certain apps won't run without tinkering on Linux because the target OS was not installed in an adequate state in the first place to support them. UT2003 was simply an example of an app which won't run because no dist sees fit to ship a proper 3D enabled Xfree display driver. You could replace UT2003, with a video conferencing suite, or a CAD/CAM application, or a interior decorating app. The point is that if you have a 3d card, or surround sound, or a USB modem etc. (which you presumably bought to exploit), then the OS should install the proper drivers to support it or guide you through the steps necessary to get them.

If Windows can do it, then so can Linux. If Mac OS X can turn a bear like BSD (arguably much rougher in any incarnation to install and use than Linux) into a pussycat then so can Linux.

Re:OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[mpe]

You seem to think 'office' equates to large scale corporations with an IT department and everyone running the same hardware. Clearly this is not the case, for the vast army of SOHO workers, legal firms, accountants, estate agents, shop keepers, electricians, printers, architects etc.

Would a green grocer act as his or her own shop fitter, plumber, electrician, carpet layer, estate agent, lawyer, accountant, car mechanic, etc? Yet it's expected to be possible for them to administer and maintain a complex machine.

Unless Linux can install out of the box, either with the drivers or prompt them where to find them, and provide useful context sensitive help, and hide the advanced options and provide wizards for the everyday tasks, I would not consider Linux ready to replace Windows at all.

Why do you think it makes sense for a non computer literate person to be messing around with the internals of computer operating systems or applications in the first place? Do people demand cars which can be serviced by anyone who can drive? Even if they did would it be sensible to attempt to do this.

As for your UT2003 remark, I see you have missed the point. Certain apps won't run without tinkering on Linux because the target OS was not installed in an adequate state in the first place to support them. UT2003 was simply an example of an app which won't run because no dist sees fit to ship a proper 3D enabled Xfree display driver. You could replace UT2003, with a video conferencing suite, or a CAD/CAM application, or a interior decorating app.

Installing drivers or apps is not really a "user level" task in the first place. Would you ask the average user to take a soldering iron to a piece of electronics?

If Windows can do it, then so can Linux.

In a great many situations Windows can't do it. Windows users end up having to ask an expert to set up their machines. If the "wizard" messes up the results can be worst than if nothing had been tried.
An unwanted side effect of this user administered paradigm is to make things much easier for all sorts of malware.

Re:OS X and Linux both lowest TCO

[DrXym]

Would a green grocer act as his or her own shop fitter, plumber, electrician, carpet layer, estate agent, lawyer, accountant, car mechanic, etc? Yet it's expected to be possible for them to administer and maintain a complex machine.

Sorry but this a dumb analogy.

I don't know the first thing about my car or my TV which are both complex machines. I just expect the bloody things to have a simple interface and to do what I bought them to do. I don't expect wires to be hanging out the back, or to have to open the hood and work on it with spanners to make the bloody thing do what I bought it for. The same goes for a computer, doubly so when there are already competing operating systems which have no such requirements.

To stand on the soapbox and claim "Linux is a complicated machine so therefore it should not be made easier to use" (even when it can and should be) is both elitist and the very reason why Linux is not conquering the desktop.

Personally I wish Linux were as easy as Mac OS X. Not only would it be on millions more machines than it is now but the market for my computer skills would vastly increase and I would waste less time fucking around with config files and HOWTOs accomplishing what XP or OS X can do with a few mouse clicks. It wouldn't stop me playing around in a shell (as I so often do with OS X), but it would mean I don't have to.

Installing drivers or apps is not really a "user level" task in the first place. Would you ask the average user to take a soldering iron to a piece of electronics?

And would you call an electrician to install a toaster? I hope not. You would expect to be able to plug it in and begin using it. There is no reason that it should be any different for an OS. At worst the OS should bend over backwards to make the act of installing a driver for some new peripheral as painless as possible. Linux most certainly does not do that.

Where's the problem with these comparisons

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't consider the cost of *modifying* the existing software. Say, you want outlook to have some menus hidden when a low-security user is trying to run it, to avoid confusion by newbie users and misconfiguration by curious/malicious users. That's a change you can do with free software, but you can't go ask Microsoft "Hey, could you implement this for us, pleeeeeeeaze?". Or if they did, how much would it cost *then*?

Unfortunately, they might still win

[hajejan]

The pilot project is designed to find out to what degree open source things might work. This is not an ethical or an anti-microsoft statement, it is merely an economical item on the agenda. If Microsoft - even if it is just for this county - drops their prices to below whatever the OC community can deliver, the council will be happy: It all comes down to money.

It is sad that Microsoft would stoop to the level of sabotaging a pilot project like this, but at the same time, it has to be admitted that there are several other factors to discuss. for one thing, efficiency: People who work in councils are usually older than the average population, and often have some problems with technology. I know of several people in my local council who reluctantly learned how to use Word isntead of a pencil, and who would scream murder if they would have to learn a new programme.

It is a difficult matter.

I can see this though...

[Grave_Rose]

Consultant: We have finished our audit, and our conclusion is that it would be cheaper for Newham Council to use Open Source Software.

MS rep: What??

Consultatn: Yes, the situation is quite clear. It would be cheaper to use OSS.

MS rep: Oh! We weren't expecting that! Here's a smegload of money we have from Bill's wallet. Will this suffice as a bribe to make it look better for us?

Consultant: flips through stack of money Yup. That'll do nicely.

Gr@ve_Rose

Re:I can see this though...

[Anonymous Coward]

Consultant: We have finished our audit, and our conclusion is that it would be cheaper for Newham Council to use Open Source Software.

MS rep: What??

Consultatn: Yes, the situation is quite clear. It would be cheaper to use OSS.

MS rep: Oh! We weren't expecting that! Here's a smegload of money we have from Bill's wallet. Will this suffice as a bribe to make it look better for us?

Consultant: flips through stack of money Yup. That'll do nicely....Anyway, as I was saying, OSS is cheaper to use.

MS rep: What about the bribe?

Consultant: What bribe?

MS rep: The bribe I just gave you.

Consultant: I didn't get any bribe.

MS rep: Look I either want service or my money back.

Consultant: If you're concerned about missing money, then let's talk go to the police. They may be able to help you.

MS rep: I'm not afraid. I own all the judges.

Consultant: Yes, but I'm a member of the world famous Scotish mafia.

MS rep: I'm not afraid.

Consultant: Aye lad, you should be. Scotsmen can be downright scary when they have to....especially when it comes to money.

Who cares about TCO?

[jotaeleemeese]

People that support and promote FLOSS very often loose sifgt of the most important characteristic of this kind of software: transparency, accountability (specially when software is GPLed) and avoiding to be locked in by software providers.

I would not care about paying twice as much for an open solution if after a few years my institution is sued for millions because a watchdog comes and finds impossible to audit our internal procedures.

Or after some years come a propietary company and changes the licensing schemes (because that is what is in their interest, not mine) and I am forced to pay extra money that was not in my budget.

Or waht about the propietary software company decides that my version of X program is not going to be supported enymore and all my main processes are using that software perfectly fine and I would prefer to rather no upgrade or migrate to the latest and shiniest?

MS will emphasize the TCO when they can put forwad cases in which it would appear MS stuff is cheaper. Well, at this stage of the game TCO is a red herring, since there are many other considerations far more important, specially for democratically elected bodies, I would glance at such study and ingonre it it completely since closed source software companies are to be considered only as a very last desperate resource.

Re:Who cares about TCO?

[Alkarismi]

If I had mod point right now they'd be coming your way.

Thank you for this insight. I agree wholeheartedly!

Unfortunately, this is not where the general level of conversation around benefits is right now. It would be good if it could be shifted in this direction though. It's can be frustrating sometimes that potential users get caught up in issues that are *actually* minor whilst missing the areas that are *killing them*. This is a classic example. Thanks.

Re:Who cares about TCO?

[awol]

Even beyond TCO is the fact that any software developed or enhanced to meet Newhams needs would work just as well for any other of the hundreds of councils in the UK. Surely this is the killer argument. Every penny spent by Newham (or Council X) to get functionality they need is a penny that council Y no longer needs to spend. Microsoft cannont possibly compete in this utility model.

Re:Who cares about TCO?

[mpe]

People that support and promote FLOSS very often loose sifgt of the most important characteristic of this kind of software: transparency, accountability (specially when software is GPLed) and avoiding to be locked in by software providers.

The first two are (or at least should be) relevent when the task in question is government. Or at least any government which claims democratic credentials.

Or after some years come a propietary company and changes the licensing schemes (because that is what is in their interest, not mine) and I am forced to pay extra money that was not in my budget.

You may not even pay all the extra money to the software company. Quite a bit could be spent simply checking what you'd need to buy under the new scheme.

Or waht about the propietary software company decides that my version of X program is not going to be supported enymore and all my main processes are using that software perfectly fine and I would prefer to rather no upgrade or migrate to the latest and shiniest?

Even if the "latest and shiniest" works perfectly it won't deploy itself. Most likely several tweaks and workarounds which were used with the old system will no longer work (worst case senario being quiet data corruption). As the whole thing is based on proprietary software your support don't have a clue why...

MS will emphasize the TCO when they can put forwad cases in which it would appear MS stuff is cheaper. Well, at this stage of the game TCO is a red herring, since there are many other considerations far more important

Most likely the T won't actually mean "Total". e.g. excluding consideration of licence audits, costs of changing licence systems, forced upgrades (including consequential costs of doing the upgrade.), etc.

CCC - EAL4+ for Windows 2000 SP3!

[Anonymous Coward]

The auditors should mention CAL's - a wicked scheme where using less, saves you nothing, and a powerful disincentive to mix in open source.

First google hit on CCC is cure for the common Cold, but lets talk security, even though XP has NO rating, but EAL4+ for 2K. How did this happen?, given the vuln's disclosed since.

As Arnie would say, your licence is terminated.

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes of course. No more than a hobbyist OS.

Please tell that to the rapidly increasing number of US Government bodies who use Linux on their supercomputer clusters. Windows can barely scale to multiple CPU's, let alone a thousand nodes. I'm sure that kind of scalability is a hobbyist feature!

Or talk to the US army who having given up trialling Windows 2000 for their 'computer on a soldier' because it was too unreliable, and have instead opted for Linux.

Not a troll eh? Pull your head out of your ass and accept that Linux here to stay.. AND to finally (and rightfully) steal some of the Microsoft limelight.

Sorry, It's my fault.

[Moderation abuser]

I get paid lots more than the guys (yes, 3 of them) in the Windows team.

However. I look after 110 systems while they look after around 15. My 110 systems are centrally managed, highly available, load balanced providing massive computing power to the engineers in the department, while the windows boxes are barely highly available and have no credible way of distributing processing.

The engineers use a thin client (X11) to access the Unix systems and no longer have a desktop Unix workstation, meaning changes for all users can be done in seconds the windows guys put a PC on every desktop meaning changes for everyone take hours, days, weeks and require a whole separate team of 4 people (yes over and above the server guys) *just* for the desktop support.

Tell me again why Unix/Linux is more expensive?

Re:How can Open Source Movement counter such moves

[CFBMoo1]

If the people pushing open source want to be shrewd. I'd say contact IT people running MS shops. Ask them how viruses and security updates effect their work schedual. Another thought would be to ask people who got sweet deals in the past from MS and now have to pay the piper so to speak at full price for upgrades.

Another method might be to point out some interesting effects of using MS software like here, here, and here to just name three quickies off slashdot. Google has a nice collection of information as well to present to the boss. Google also has links on TOC (total cost of ownership) for your researching pleasure from both camps it seems.

Of Cupboards and Skeletons

[ajs318]

How likely is it that this audit will turn up something it shouldn't? I mean, what are the chances of there not being a single infringement of licence conditions coming to light in an audit on this scale?

I can't see how there can't be at least a few minor violations to be discovered in this study. Furthermore, after the audit is finished, Newham will be irredeemably marked down as a hotbed of piracy and copyright infringement. So, something will have to be done to ensure there is no possibility of a repeat performance. There are two ways to do so. Either you implement draconian procedures, and dedicate staff and resources to ensuring that licence conditions are complied with {and that means that if your system goes T.U., it could be out of action for a full day if the few people who are authorised to fix it are all somewhere else; but after all, it is better to miss a deadline, even if it could place lives and jobs in jeopardy, than to risk a licence infringement}. Or, you take it the other way around. Let's explore the "known facts" again.

1. Licence infringement must be prevented.
2. Copying software constitutes a licence infringement.
3. Preventing the copying of software costs time and money.

We are forced to conclude that preventing licence infringement costs time and money ..... or are we?

If we did not care about licence infringements, it would not matter. But that was what got us into this mess. We have to accept premise [1] as inviolable. If there was a quick and cheap method to prevent the copying of software, then premise [3] - and by extension, the conclusion - would be invalidated. Unfortunately, copy prevention is impossible without much human intervention.

But what about premise [2]? Is there a way for copying software not to constitute a licence infringement?

You bet your butt there is. Again you have to make a draconian policy decision; this time, that no software that cannot be freely copied and distributed without anyone having cause for complaint shall be brought onto site. This time, though, the technology is on your side. By banishing Windows altogether and using only Linux on the desktop, you quietly yet firmly ensure that Windows software cannot be used on site. And, as most of the non-Free software is for Windows, you have actively prevented a huge chunk of the problem. Someone with a CD burner on their desktop could be knocking off copies of software using your equipment; but that's clearly got a lot less to do with you, as you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the software being copied isn't yours - sort of like squatters you didn't know about dealing drugs from a property you own. Ignorance of the fact is a valid defence. Under Linux, it's trivial to restrict the use of the CD-RW drive to a few trustworthy people, so containing the problem.

As for whole the "retraining of staff" bit, it's a freaking myth. What do they use computers for? Word processing and spreadsheets, mostly. See how all the typing keys are all in different places on a Linux computer? Oh, wait, they aren't, are they? Damn. Seriously, in all seriousness, why do you persist in the belief that typing a simple memo in KWord is any harder that typing a simple memo in MSWord?

Re:Of Cupboards and Skeletons

[Anonymous Coward]

See how all the typing keys are all in different places on a Linux computer? Oh, wait, they aren't, are they?

That's not what my mom said when she had to learn to type Dvorak.

Any bets MS will make sure they "win"?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet this "external audit" will come out in MS'es favour:

• They'll make sure that the most expensive Linux distro is used (Red Hat Enterprise 3 or something), complete with the highest level of Red Hat support.

• They'll insist that Oracle Enterprise Edition is the only DB available for Linux (APLAWS project that Newham pilot foolishly uses it, when it should be using PostgreSQL or MySQL) - just happens to be the most expensive DB around of course.

• They'll insist that neither Open Office nor Star Office are 100% compatible with MS Office (strictly true I guess, but does Newham use that few percent of things that aren't compatible?) and that all desktops must run Crossover Office with MS Office licensed in there too of course.

• They will ignore the issues of the cost of patching and anti-virus maintenance, which is clearly higher on Windows.

• They will claim that a Linux administrator can only administer the same number of machines as a Windows administrator, but of course the Linux admin costs more every time...

• They will factor in very high "retraining costs", despite the fact that the Linux apps probably only take a few hours each to learn compared to their MS equivalents.

• They won't eliminate Exchange servers from the equation, instead insisting that Ximian Connector licenses have to be purchased.

• They will ignore that even the most basic of Linux distros comes with thousands of apps as standard, all of which don't cost extra - so should Newham want to either change to a different set of client software or try out some new client software, chances are that the Linux distro has them as standard or they're just a free download away.

Re:Any bets MS will make sure they "win"?

[Anonymous Coward]

microft is "paying for an external audit .. to provide a cost justification for Windows and Office"

so they are paying for an audit whose outcome will be a justification for their software.

That alone tells you that its biased right from the start.

Re:How can Open Source Movement counter such moves

[Spoing]

Personally, I'm trying to get people to think about open source and am in the process of putting together a CD presentation pack of OpenOffice for MPs.

I'm doing the same...though on a lower level (no congress critters, just regular people). Any pointers -- or resources -- you could offer or recommend?

Newham -- not a poster boy

[Half-pint HAL]

Newham hasn't been picked as an "easy win" for Microsoft: it's more of a "key win". Newham considers itself -- with fair justification -- as "a leader in local government ICT" (another Register article, new today). If Microsoft lose this one, other local councils may well see it as proof OSS is viable in place of MS' wares. For this reason, Microsoft are going to have to make sure the suits believe the hype....

eEurope 2005 specs rule out consideration of MS

[SgtChaireBourne]

Given the current state of MS-products and the fact that Longhorn is 3 years away if at all, MS products are pretty much ruled out by the specifications set in eEurope 2005.

eEurope 2005 hits hard by not only requiring a secure infrastructure by 2005 (automatically ruling out the current line of MS tools), but also by ensure that there is competition and interoperability. The latter, interoperability, requires use of open standards, some thing which Microsoft could do but has consistently chosen to corrupt or pervert. See its treatment of HTTP, LDAP or Kerberos for three of many examples. In the former, MS is the subject of numerous anti-trust, anti-competition and anti-freemarket cases.

Of course on a less serious note, the UK could get out of this one by secedng from the EU and joining the U.S. That woud have the side benefit of Tony Bliar becoming a natural born U.S. citizen and thus eligable to replace Bush.

Re:eEurope 2005 specs rule out consideration of MS

[DF5JT]

Please mod parent up.

eEurope2005 is the most effective Weapon against any proprietary lock-in and should be made more aware to the IT-world.

Microsoft has no way of meeting the requirements set forth in these *laws* by 2005. Any European government agency switching to XP risks a big slap on its wrist by the EU.

Audition team

[DF5JT]

The audition team from Microsoft will almost certainly consist of more sales guys than technical guys. And the sales guys will have a huge budget.

Not Sure if this is a Good Move by Microsoft....

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever report they come up with it is always going to be pro-Microsoft, and we are going to see the sorts of strange figures we have seen in those Gartner reports. Everybody knows these reports have been total rubbish, but up until now everybody has just excepted that as par for the course.

However, this investigation is going to be very closely scrutinised by many people and shortcomings immediately pointed out. Microsoft may have got away with FUD pre-Internet, but they can't now. It just shows that they still don't understand the Internet at all.

If this Microsoft/Cap Gemini report unravels on them, as it very well might do, it may do them much more harm than good.

more like this

[joshsnow]

Consultant:We have finished our audit, and our conclusion is that it would be cheaper for Newham Council to use Open Source Software.

MS rep: What??

Consultant:Yes, the situation is quite clear. It would be cheaper to use OSS.

MS rep:Oh! We weren't expecting that!

Newham rep:This meeting has been quicker than I thought it would be. Shall we go to the pub for a lunch-time pint?

MS rep:Wait...here's a smegload of money we have from Bill's wallet. Will this suffice as a bribe to make it look better for us?

Newham rep:Yup! That should pay for enough beer to distort reality sufficiently!

Consultant:Duck and Drake or Kings Head?

Newham rep:Nah, Broken Spinner. Now, I've just got to dash to the toilet, so I'll see you both down there in 10 minutes. [to MS rep] Get a tab started will yah...

Biased

[Dragoon]

Um, Microsoft is doing this themselves?

Yea, they're a truely unbiased 3rd party company. Sure..

No matter what, microsoft will come out on top in this study. And if this study would be done by a Linux group, MS would come out at the bottom.

It's called a conflict of interest, you cant do a cost eval. on your own products. its stupid. If you like your job, of course you'll say yours is better, faster, and cheaper.

Hell, if you're desperate enough, you'll throw in that its a possible cure for cancer while youre at it.

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[Anonymous Coward]

This is because you are an idiot and have no skills with Open Source software whatsoever. This is merely evidence that you don't know what you are talking about. Take it from me, this is first hand eveidence that you are not any sort of IT professional. I certainly wouldn't even trust you with any sort of Windows implementation, let along an OSS based one.

Apache is the most popular web server on the Internet. IIS isn't. So what are people doing wrong then? Or what are you doing wrong?

Shareware version of Linux! Give me a f*****g break! What distribution? How was it put together?

This is a very, very poor attempt at a troll. You have not used Linux or Open Source software at all so don't even pretend.

Do you work for Microsoft? I had to ask.

MOD PARENT UP

[dido]

Our AC is for once absolutely correct. As that line from "Once Upon a Time in Mexico" goes: "The best way to win is to rig the game."

The Auditor has a vested interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Ernst & Young are hardly going to say that Microsoft has a more expensive TCO when their own organisation runs on Microsoft products.

That would be like telling all their customers that they use a more expensive solution regardless of the facts.

They will produce a report which says that open source is cheaper in some irrelevent areas but that Microsoft products have a clear advantage where it counts.

Re:The Auditor has a vested interest

[Anonymous Coward]

Cap Gemini Ernst & Young aren't the same people as Ernst & Young. CGEY has just had their "favoured MS partner" status renewed for another year or whatever but I'm sure that won't affect their "impartiality" at all, hmmm. I would imagine they are using this audit as a way of trying to sell Newham their various services but unfortunatley there track record at managing services for councils is not too good. CGEY do mainly run on MS Products but they also run and manages a lot of Unices for people so they do have a wider experience than just the MS Way.

Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single REPUTABLE, unbiased study has had Windows end up with a far lower TCO then linux.
And that is even BEFORE adding in the ineveitable and potentially HUGE legal costs that are going to come the way of anyone who is stupid enough to use linux for their mission critical apps, not just from SCO, but from a whole host of companies whose copyrighted code has been massivley stolen and hoovered up en masse into the linux code base.
The American hating German Nazis and losers at Munich basically screwed German taxpayers big time by opting for a far more expensive SuSe linux solution out of pure spite and to prop up a failing German softeware company (Suse).
Meanwhile we doing our best to organise true American patriots to BOYCOTT all overpriced third rate produicts like the overpriced, always breaking down Mercedes cars(http://www.fortune.com/fortune/investing/arti cles/0,15114,517706,00.html).
Lets pay the American hating German clowns in their own coin!
As for Newham, having lived in Plastow (close to Newham coucil in Stratford) for over 5 years, one thing I know for sure is Newham taxpayers are not going to sit idly by and watch their tax pounds wasted on a more expensive, harder to use , problem infested linux "solution" just to please a few loony left , anti-American fanatics.
Tony Blair is still busy rooting out the left wing crazies from the Labour Party!

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Anonymous Coward]

Reputable = Free from Linux fud, linux disinformation, linux propaganda and linux dirty tricks, concorted and created mostly by the Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond, Goebbels-like linux propaganda and disinformation machine!

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[MarvinMouse]

I know you are a troll, but in case some people on slashdot are idiots, I'm going to go through your post and rip it to shreds.

Every single REPUTABLE, unbiased study has had Windows end up with a far lower TCO then linux.

Using a qualifier as "reputable", without specifically defining it basically makes your statement meaningless because it defines the "acceptable" studies as whatever ones agree with your topic. I could easily give many reputable studies which show the opposite, and I am certain you could easily claim bias, because unfortunately part of critiques is the fact that the tester is biased towards the better product.

And that is even BEFORE adding in the ineveitable and potentially HUGE legal costs that are going to come the way of anyone who is stupid enough to use linux for their mission critical apps, not just from SCO, but from a whole host of companies whose copyrighted code has been massivley stolen and hoovered up en masse into the linux code base.

Yes, because there are so many lawsuits against users of Linux (look at lawsuits directed at IBM for a relative estimate.) Whoa, there's only one, and it's from SCO, and has shown thus far to be just a golden parachute scheme by owners trying to eek a bit more money out of their company while they can. There are _NO_ other lawsuits against users of Linux.

The American hating German Nazis and losers at Munich

Incredible sign of bias, and bad grammar. (The proper form would be The American-hating German Nazis.) Either way though, this statement is just a sign of ignorance and brings down your argument further. (Did your company lose a contract to Linux in Germany?)

basically screwed German taxpayers big time by opting for a far more expensive SuSe linux solution out of pure spite and to prop up a failing German softeware company (Suse).

Okay, this is completely wrong. Suse is a German company, so basically they helped out their economy by keeping the taxpayers money in the country. Just as you, an American want to keep money in the American economy, view arguments later for clarification.

Meanwhile we doing our best to organise true American patriots to BOYCOTT all overpriced third rate produicts like the overpriced, always breaking down Mercedes cars.

Continuing on, you say that Germany cannot purchase their own products, because that makes them nazis, but then you state that Americans should only buy American products... can we say double standard? As well, Mercedes are only one brand of car coming from Germany, there is also BMW, and an American favorite Daimler Chrysler (Daimler is a German company.) Yet, I can also say that Mercedes generally last longer than some American companies as well (read FORD.)

Lets pay the American hating German clowns in their own coin!

As well, let's pay the German hating Americans(British?) in their own coin. (whatever that may mean.) It's funny that you hate them so much and yet are completely blind to the fact that you are the same thing.

As for Newham, having lived in Plastow (close to Newham coucil in Stratford) for over 5 years, one thing I know for sure is Newham taxpayers are not going to sit idly by and watch their tax pounds wasted on a more expensive, harder to use , problem infested linux "solution" just to please a few loony left , anti-American fanatics.

But they may be interested in saving money for more important services by switching to a better Linux solution, or a cheaper non-MS solution. Many large governments run on non-MS solutions, save incredible amounts of money, and still do successfully.

Tony Blair is still busy rooting out the left wing crazies from the Labour Party!

So you are saying that Tony Blair is trying to convert the Labour Party (Which is a leftist party) into the Conservatives? Why doesn't he just switch parties?

Newaiz, I think you need to back off on the coffee, have a nice pint, and relax. Hopefully things will seem clearer after a pint or two. ^_^

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that Tony Blair is trying to convert the Labour Party (Which is a leftist party) into the Conservatives? Why doesn't he just switch parties?

I am saying that the Laobour Party was in the wilderness and out of power for EIGHTEEN years during the Tatcher years and Conseravtive Party rule.
Why? Because the loony left had hi-jackedcontrol of the Labour Party.
I am also saying that under Tony Blair and before him under John Smith, the Labour Party was guided towards the centre(where most of the British electorate are) and purged of left wing extremism.
That is the main reason why Tony Bliar has now become the most succesful Labour leader of the last 100 years!

Many large governments run on non-MS solutions, save incredible amounts of money, and still do successfully

Yeah?
Name me just one!
And back it up with a fully audited , independently checked side by side compariosn with an equivalent linux solution taking everything(TCO) into consideration.

It's funny that you hate them so much and yet are completely blind to the fact that you are the same thing.

So far, we haven't had an American president run his entire political campaign based on stirring up anti-German hatred, like Gerhad Schroeder(the German Chancellor) did when he run his ENTIRE campaign for power based on stoking up as much anti-American hatred as he could!

Okay, this is completely wrong. Suse is a German company, so basically they helped out their economy by keeping the taxpayers money in the country. Just as you, an American want to keep money in the American economy, view arguments later for clarification

My answer to that is: BRING IT ON!
Germany has a trade surpluss to the tune of over $40 billion with the United States.
The EU (which is by far the most protectionist organisation on the planet) has a trade surpluss of well over $100 billion with the US.
Microsoft makes over 50% of their sales in America and less than 5% of their sales in Germany
On the other hand European multinationals like BP, Shell, BMW, Siemens, Mercedes, SAP etc etc make far MORE sales in America than they make in their own home countries.
Those Nazis in Munich want a trade war? They are gonna get it!
They can buy German. We will buy American. Lets see who ends up losing most.
From my reckoning, we could stand to gain at least a net 1 million jobs in America by buying American and letting the nasty Europeans buy European. While the Europeans increase theirt unemployment even more than its already high level now (Germany's unemployment now is nearly TWEICE that of the US already).

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Anonymous Coward]

Using a qualifier as "reputable", without specifically defining it basically makes your statement meaningless because it defines the "acceptable" studies as whatever ones agree with your topic.

In every line of work, we have REPUTABLE organisations and people, whther its doctors, enginners, architects or whatever.
That reputation comes out of years of solid work which has been reviews by their peers.
In IT, we have always had IDC, Gartner Group etc etc.
These are the UNBIASED arbiters of conflicting cliams in the IT industry and perfect or not, those are the berst that we have as of now.

Over the past 3 months we have had study after study of Windows versus Linux TCO comparisons, from these well established organisations and over and over again, Windows has CLOBBERED linux in TCO.
We haven't even talked about performance of Windows 2003 versus linux on equal hardware where Windows simply reduces linux to ashes!
Availabilty of vital commercial sopftware like Peoplesoft? Windows simply SMOKES linux.
linux simply doesn't even begin to compete, no matter how you slice it!

Whoa, there's only one, and it's from SCO, and has shown thus far to be just a golden parachute scheme by owners trying to eek a bit more money out of their company while they can. There are _NO_ other lawsuits against users of Linux.

SCO's lawsuit is just the beginning. Thered is so much stolen code in linux, expect a FLOOD of lawsuits over the next 5 years. The funny thing in all this? IBM REFUSES to indemnify anybody from any lawsuits that might come any costumer's way from using linux. Now that is really telling isn't it?

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Anonymous Coward]

Whilst British unemployment is evidently so low, companies are forced to employ people who don't even know how to run a spellcheck...

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know the US trade dept is the highest in the world, soon rocking the world economy, so you should indeed start to bye US cars.
As far as linux and OSS is conserned the US is the strongest user of both linux and OSS, and that is very nice. About towns using linux, I recall a US town Largo as one of the first towns to move to OSS in the world. That is fine too, and they have saved money too.
Regards,

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Open Council]

So far, we haven't had an American president run his entire political campaign based on stirring up anti-German hatred

True... Bush distracted people from his shortcomings by striring up anti-FRENCH hatred.

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as I know the US trade dept is the highest in the world, soon rocking the world economy, so you should indeed start to bye US cars.

Most of US trade deficit is from American companies with factories in China and elsewhere to take advantage of lower costs of production. The profits still end up in America.
Just check the US GDP figures that just came out today.. AN AWESOME 7.2%, the fastest in two decades, and company profits this past quarter have been smoking!!! How fast is Old Europe growing? LOL!
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=100 00006& sid=aCtVRUK_ib_w&refer=home

BTW, I ONLY buy American cars. Period!

Re:Windows CLOBBERS stolen linux in TCO everytime

[Anonymous Coward]

True... Bush distracted people from his shortcomings by striring up anti-FRENCH hatred.

I was here in the US during the entire election campaign in 2002 and prety much followed most speeches that George Bush gave.
Show me just ONE occasion when Bush even mentioned Germany or France in any election campaign, let alone stir up anything even close to hatred against the garlic eating, smelly French frog eaters.

Anti M$ legislation

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that all the democratic countries on the globe should pass a lagislation to forbid M$ and its products.

I propose that anyone speaking friendly words about this wealthy terrorist organization should be subject to heavy interrogations under extremely unfriendly conditions.
Furthermore, those individuals should be isolated from their most inmediate contacts, including their families, by jailing them in an obscure corner of the planet, where they know no one, and no one will know where they are (not even themselves - they must be blindfolded the 72 hours or so the journey'll take on a chicken farm pickup truck).
When they reach their destination, they should be denied the right to an atorney, and put into isolation for a couple of years of torture and torments, and then and only then should they be taken out, get interrogated, after which they should be "put to sleep"

We must also make a deck of cards whith the faces and names of the leaders of this cowardly terrorist organization, and let the military hunt them down like dogs.

Any person caught using a M$ product shall suffer the death penalty as of today.

If you'll excuse me, I'll go low-level format my hard drive...

Re:This isn't a news piece...follow thy money...

[AetherBurner]

Of course there are Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. Then substitute your favorite company in place of "Statistics" (Obligatory...couldn't resist).

Mod parent up

[AlistairGroves]

If I had the mod points I'd use them...

Who runs Newham, the Council or Microsoft?

[WebfishUK]

I doubt this audit will see beyond the financial cost of ownership. I have reservations regarding a single, closed source, foreign organisation providing all the infrastructure necessary to run Govermental organisations in this Country. To what level are Microsoft answerable to the British Government? The non-financial cost of ownership is more important than the cost of running MS Access/Word on a couple of thousand PC's.

Re:How can Open Source Movement counter such moves

[chthon]

I am setting up a two way, 64-bit server system to test several things and to create a cost comparison between Linux and MS.

I know what I want on the hardware side, it should cost me about $()2000. From this point onwards, we could to the following, this is a draft I am working on, and which should be expanded.

The only thing I am still missing is a relatively cheap broadband connection, which I can use to demonstrate things on remote systems, bootable by a Knoppix CD-ROM.

Here are my thoughts.

Project : Linux 64-bit server

Purpose of the project

A 64-bit, AMD Opteron based server will be built as a fairly performant system for usage in a small to medium business or workgroup environment. Several tasks will be handed to the server :

- Database server, using 64 bit optimised postgreSQL
- Intranet server, using 64 bit optimised Apache and PHP, if possible
- File server, using 64 bit optimised Samba, if possible
- Application server, using 64 bit optimised XFree86 and OpenOffice.org

The project consists of several tasks, which in the end should result in a cost comparison between a Linux and a Windows system which should be able to deliver the same processing power.

The first task is looking for benchmarks to measure the system parameters :
- CPU utilisation
- Memory utilisation
- Mass storage speed under load
- Network utilisation under load
- CPU load
- Response time when more processes are added

The main purpose of these measurements is to extrapolate the number of users that can be supported by this one system, doing several different tasks or using the system for more or less the same task.

The second part is to extrapolate based upon these numbers of users, the corresponding cost of equivalent Microsoft software, being based upon purchasing cost of operating systems, CAL's and application software. In addition to this, the cost of anti-virus software should be taken into account for MS based systems.
After that the maintenance of the system comes in the cost factor. This maintenance is separated into several parts :
- Patching the system against security problems (scheduled downtime)
- Upgrading software based on a three or four year life cycle (scheduled downtime)
- Unscheduled downtimes : software and/or hardware failures : what do these cost ?

This is not easy. This needs the discipline of someone who is accustomed to filling in a log book. This means that a log book is necessary, preferably a paper one, or one on another system,, which is very strictly backed up and for which there are off-site backups.

Another factor is deciding when the system is end of life. The system must be purchased, but the life cycle of it mandates the yearly costs. The longer the lifecycle, the lower the costs.

At the other side of the cost spectrum is the question, what income factors does the system bring ? In what way does the system amplify the productivity of the people who use it ? This is inherently bound to the business process. What value someone is in the organisation can only be answered by looking at what losses/gains the company would make if that certain person is not there in the organisation.

Another way to look at this, is to compute the factor real work/overhead for someone. However, this is not really fair on a person by person basis, because some people are in the organisation to do overhead jobs, for someone who does the real work. Thus, in this case the whole group should be taken into account.

Still another way to look at the gains of automating an office, is to look at what it would cost to do the same task using mechanical means (paper, pencil, typewriter, internal/external mail, paper archival, retrieval and processing).

There are tasks which can be enhanced by generic software, and there are tasks that must be done according to strict business rules, which means that someone must spent time and resources to build this software. Once it is up and running, however, further usage is almost free. However, some time maintaining the software must be taken into account.

Re:They're spinning this for Joe Suit, not Slashdo

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes correct. Ironically Newham is a well-known 'loony left' council where most employees band together in tribal cabals who only employ their otherwise unemployable illegal-immigrant relations. Take a look at job-ads for these councils 'Director of IT' positions some-time. They make less than any competent developer even though they're in charge of numerous IT managers.

So, The Author Anderson guys got a job now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure the report will be impartial and completely unbiased...

One Born Every Minute...

[Anonymous Coward]

as the saying goes...

Why fix it up if you can sell it while it is broken?

MS puts lipstick on a pig and sends it out to the prom...

'Buy More Lipstick!!!'

Cap vs. EY

[Anonymous Coward]

Just a note of clarification. The article didn't mention Ernst & Young (EY) anywhere. Cap Gemini Ernst & Young (CG) is a completely separate company that is not related through ownership at all. EY sold its consulting practice to CG a while back and CG negotiated use of the name for brand recognition purposes since CG wasn't big in the North American market yet.

Couple of other things, CG does not employ auditors, so they'll have to hire someone - and if that someone is EY then there's going to be a problem for them. I work for EY and I work in the department that would probably handle this audit if EY were hired (but not in Great Britian). After Anderson's collapse, all the partners are scared to death of submitting anything false. Still, I'd love to be on that audit.

Which, trust me, means that MS and CG chose the specific place they did because they're sure (for whatever reasons) that the audit will be in their favor there.

Linux "community"''s intransidence

[Anonymous Coward]

Like any failing, brain dead group, the linux community's answer to any study by superior minds, which shows how really crap linux is, is to immediately come up with every ridiculous excuse under the sun, to show why that report couldn't possible be "right" and to heap abuse and ridicule on any group that came out with a report that did not put linux in a favourable light.
Incredibly, the same linux community's respone to studies from the very same group, putting linux in anything close to a good light is to turn around and praise that same group to high heaven for coming out with the "real" story on linux.

You guys are beyond contempt.
Linux community has ZERO credibility, and is every bit as nasty as bin laden and his cohorts!

question about auditing.

[andy1307]

How can you audit savings that will accrue in the future?

Auditors generaly do a good job...

[Jonathan Platt]

This will end with either MS in tears, or allot of whining, red faced Linux pushers. I actually think MS might actually win this, simply because of the training costs (both trainers and employees on the clock), and transfer costs involved with Linux. The other thing is, if their is only a marginal cost difference most companies will choose to stick with MS to save effort. I'm a big Linux fan myself but I don't think it has yet reached the corporate/consumer market. Then again for a company starting from scratch (will not be tested) Linux could be the way to go.

Cost is not the main issue

[unoengborg]

Even if Microsoft somehow manages to show that they are less expensive, they do not fulfil the requrements of open well documented document formats. This is needed for free exchange of information between the government and the citizens.
Such information exchange is essential to the democratic process in the digital age.

Re:Cost is not the main issue

[knghtrider]

At issue here is TCO, and unfortunately, TCO isn't limited to simply how much it costs to use, train, deploy, and support an application. There are other problems that need to be addressed; from internal customization of applications to patch management and OS updates.

Let us look at MS-Office as an example. While Open Office affords us the ability to be about 90% compatible (I have personally seen issues with conversion from/to MS .doc format), it's the other 10% that drives TCO through the ceiling. This is inflated by the use of Macros and VBA code within documents, spreadsheets and databases (BTW--I have yet to see an adequate Open Sourch replacement for Access. If anyone does know of any, please feel free to correct me.) and this use of Macros/VBA Code is where the real problem lies.

I know that we should *not* be using VBA code, but many users do--especially Excel Superusers; and this problem exacerbates the Open Source -vs- Microsoft Debate. This isn't limited to internal users, either. Many, many vendors and external users compound the issue beyond any hope of rational solution.

TCO is also exacerbated by the land of the 'instant MCSE' ( I relate those to the US Navy 'Pushbutton Petty Officers'.). Like the Pushbutton PO, they lack the experience needed to think in terms of both how to do things the right way (not necessarily a Microsoft 'Best Practice) and the secure way. This type of thinking only comes with a lot of experience in IT, and you don't get that in 9 months of night classes and some testing software to get you through the tests.

Security training to M$ admins is also an afterthought--although it is improving--and is a real sore-spot. With Unix/Linux, you have to know networking and security, but with Microsoft, you don't really need to know it. A recent editorial in MCP magazine proposed a Board-Certification for Network Engineers. You would start with the MSCE..then you would take a hands on test (like the CCIE) and follow that up with an oral examination by a board of your peers. This is designed after the Certification processes many other professions use, from Nuclear Engineers, to Doctors. I would love to see this become common practice--for all forms of Network Engineer, from Microsoft to Linux. Even Sun, HP and IBM could adopt it. Or, switching gears, make it independent of any vendor, but use a vendors own 'Network Engineer' level of certification as a basic starting point.

Microsoft is not the enemy here, the real enemy is apathy. Apathy by the Board of Directors, the CEO/COO, CIO/CFO, the Admins, the End Users, and by programmers who develop the applications. Even using an Open Source or Unix solution is still NOT the Holy Grail. Patches for Unix OS's and associated software are still required, and they still *might* break your application and thus must be tested. The sad thing is that many organizations, regardless of their solution choice, do not take the time to be aware of proper Patch Management techniques. They don't know about or are too cheap to invest in a "Production Test Environment"; where you model your Production Environment and test patches prior to deployment. Most often these monstrosities require at least their own managers, with cross-level support throughout the organization--from Operations to IT. However, in large organizations, this can be a full-time job for an entire team; because if they're not testing the latest vendor patch, they're testing developed applications, and this all adds to TCO.

While a Unix/Unix-like solution may be the lowest TCO for one company, for another it may well be a Microsoft solution, or a Novell solution, or some other solution we haven't seen yet. One thing for certain--as long as people are in the mix, the TCO will never be completely free.

Robert Heinlein said it best TANSTAAFL or There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch

Newham council and CCTV

[SomethingOrOther]

Newham council has always been a bit controvercial with regards to technology.

A few years ago they caused a big stink by installing a face recognition CCTV system all over the town. See here

What matters to the public

[linuxbikr]

The public does not care what their government runs on. What they do care about, as others have said, is being able to access data that is important to them freely.

Despite being a Linux user, I have mellowed over the past few years and I really don't care what an organization uses. If it gets the job done, so be it. My issue (both at home and in the corporate world) is being able to share data. As long as I can read the document, data file, database, spreadsheet, etc, using the tools of my choice and provide that data to my peers in the formats they need it in, what one uses to make use of the data is largely irrelevant. It isn't a Microsoft vs. Linux debate.

In government, the public has the right be able to access their data freely and fairly. Corporations can impose limits on the tools used to access its data (i.e. everyone must use IE on the Intranet). In the public domain, cost is secondary to interoperability. You cannot dictate to the public that every MUST use IE or they are out of luck in dealing with the government. They must support all, IMHO, at least 95% of the populace. That means supporting IE, Mozilla, Linux, Opera and Mac users, to name a few. And it isn't hard, kids. Just don't use browser specific extensions.

Use commonly available formats. Use HTML, PDF, XML. Offer documents in MS Word, StarOffice/OpenOffice (SXW), ASCII text, RTF and XML formats, to name a few. Offer data in CSV, text and XML formats. Do that and the public can choose their favorite tools, be it Windows, UNIX or Linux. Governments have a civic duty to do this if they want to offer their data electronically to the public-at-large.

Microsoft's true crime is the control of file formats. Break that one monopoly and their Windows desktop monopoly will start to come apart. Education eventually triumphs over ignorance. That one ruling in the antitrust suit could've changed the world. Break their lock on the data and the rest of their business won't be able to compete except on merit.

I use OpenOffice on Windows daily for document production despite the fact I have Office installed. Just personal preference. Only my immediate co-workers know the documents aren't being produced by Office. The rest of the business couldn't care less. As long as the data is transparent and sharable, the world doesn't care how it gets produced and prcessed. That has always been the key in the enterprise and should be priority one for any e-government initiative. Run whatever you want, just make sure anyone and everyone can make use of it with the tools of their choice.

Totally worthless

[Anonymous Coward]

As nobody knows how much Windows costs after say 4 years it is all quite worthless.
All we know about the next Windows is that it will cost us as much as putting a man on the moon, that according to Gates, anyway.
This same effort to compare cost only for 3 to 4 years is a bluff used by Gartner & Co.
Gartner also tried to suggest that savings that do not show up within 2 years are not to be counted.

Newham should try to consider the next 8 to 10 years.

Tell us more about cost of use

[varjag]

Linux wins in the licensing part, but Windows wins out in the cost of use.

Given the catastrophic worm/virus outbreaks every second week, I don't see how Windows can win at that.

They are trying to freeze the market

[Anonymous Coward]

MS has been able to do this for a long time. A competitor comes in, they announce a new version 'next week'. It is late and buggy, but the competitor has starved. The Longhorn stuff is classic.

But it isn't working any more. So they take a market that is decision averse, where they are losing badly, and try to freeze it by saying 'we'll fund an audit'. How long does the audit take? Will it ever see the light of day? What if it makes MS look bad, or at least, neutral? Doesn't matter. The strategy buys time. Every other borough is told, hang on, wait for the audit, while new pc's are purchased in the normal goings on, with MS software on them.

A desperate strategy. They are starting to hurt badly.

Derek

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[rossy]

This guy might be interested to know that many high end Microprocessors are debugged using test equipment that runs Linux.

Of course, developing and simulating complex high-end microprocessors and graphics chips must be a "hobby" type activity, because I don't know of any IC simulation or test vector translation packages written in VB.

Most are written in 'C', or C++... but I forget that's OLD technology.

Actually... BASIC is much OLDER than 'C' and it was developed as a training language so that students could be introduced to programming techniques. Once they had BASIC under their belts, they could go on to learn more challenging hobby languages such as C and assembly language.

Certainly, we have a MS expert, here. Stick with what works for you. (Blue Screen of Death)

double/triple audit?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok. so M$ is paying for the audit...

Let's have another one done by SuSE, RedHat, IBM or some other pro- open source group and compare the two. Then Downing street can, if they feel it is worth their time, launch an independant review of both proposals. If M$ can truely give them a better bang-for-the-buck, then good for them. For myself, I have perfect faith in Linux being more cost effective, robust, and secure than anything M$ can pull out of their hat. An additional benefit to the *NIX comunity is that the report can also pinpoint areas where M$ excel. That can be used to develop guidelines for future guidelines for interoperability, etc...

This is what we all want?

[TheAncientHacker]

Microsoft must make money to pay for marketing, sales, developers, accountants, lawyers and support. This cost isn't insignificant.
And Red Hat, must make money to pay for marketing, sales, accountants, lawyers and limited support. This cost isn't insignificant.

Note that the only people not getting paid in open source are the techies. The developers and to a lesser degree the more technical support staff are conned into doing charity work to pay for the Porsches of the non-geeks. All profits go to the non-technical people almost in directly inverse proportion to their tech skills. At least in the commercial world, somebody besides the PHBs gets a cut.

It's mind-boggling that a group of self-proclaimed geeks would promote a system that ends up as yet another reward system for the technically incompetent. Does somebody think that marketing and managers aren't getting their fair share and geeks are just too well rewarded?

Re:This is what we all want?

[FatherOfONe]

I am somewhat confused about your point.

In FREE software nobody gets paid.

Now companies can pop up around that free software and offer stuff (RedHat), but the codebase is still free. An example would be Apache.

Re:This is what we all want?

[TheAncientHacker]

Think it through. A user of a commercial distro or a commercial product (Say, Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS or Windows Server 2003). They pay a fee (from hundreds of dollars to tens of thousands of dollars) for the software in either case.

In either Open Source or Commercial, the Executives get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Sales reps get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Marketers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Mid-level Managers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Lawyers get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Secretaries get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the Janitors get paid out of that.
In either Open Source or Commercial, the office rent gets paid out of that.
In Commercial, the Developers get paid out of that.
In Open Source, the Developers are expected to donate their work for "the good of the community".

When Red Hat sells a $15,000 Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS license, guess who gets their Porsche payments covered for the month (hint: it isn't the techies)

When IBM sells a half million dollar mainframe with a Linux license, guess who gets their vacation condo payments covered for a year (hint: it isn't the techies)

Clear enough?

Re:This is what we all want?

[hellswraith]

About time someone makes it easy enough for the geeks to understand. I agree with you.

Re:This is what we all want?

[Ogerman]

Note that the only people not getting paid in open source are the techies. The developers and to a lesser degree the more technical support staff are conned into doing charity work to pay for the Porsches of the non-geeks. All profits go to the non-technical people almost in directly inverse proportion to their tech skills. At least in the commercial world, somebody besides the PHBs gets a cut.

You may or may not have been trolling, but you certainly don't have a clue what you're talking about. Companies like RedHat are not the only ones profitting from Open Source development labor. In fact, they aren't even a significant percent. The real people making money on Open Source development are the consultant-developers who go out and meet real needs by adding to or customizing existing Free Software. I am one of said people making a living this way, so I can speak with some authority on this matter. Open Source is an opportunity for developers to take home a far larger piece of the software income pie than if they worked for a traditional proprietary software shop. I have no marketing, sales, management, accounting, and legal departments to add to my overhead. When I write software and use it in a solution for clients, I am the one getting all the profit. Can I write all the needed software myself? Of course not. But fortunately, there are other consultant-developers like myself who do their part. Together we are the development team, even though we do not work within the same walls. GPL is our social contract that we will all contribute back the work we do, for if we do not, none of us can survive (or at least not as easily). And, incidentally, I provide notably cheaper solutions for my customers as well. So everybody benefits.

Proprietary software is dying business model.

Re:This is what we all want?

[TheAncientHacker]

Apparently not easy enough since those with moderator points didn't get it. Wanna bet they're not developers?

Boot Time Irrelevant Unless You're Running MS

[FreeUser]

And at 6 UK pounds an hour that adds up after a while. Mandrake 9.2 is the fastest booting linux I have used so far, which is faster than Windows NT so hopefully I can convince them to switch

Yes, but unlike windows, GNU/Linux and FreeBSD machines do not have to be rebooted frequently, if at all.

Of course, you are also ignoring the much greater cost of maintenance, and the number of man hours/machine required to keep a Windows system running, healthy, and as secure as possible (albeit still woefully insecure) compared to that of a Linux or FreeBSD box, which involves much less time and effort.

So, your "analysis" of boot-times as a decisive TCO factor in terms of time and cost clearly show your pro-MS bias, and your ignornance of Linux and FreeBSD, in that you erroneously assume people will be booting their boxes frequently. Such is only true of Microsoft systems, and some laptops which do not store their state on powerdown (Linux does, or at least can if properly configured).

Whatever Billy Boy is paying you to spread this sort of nonsense, it is far too much.

"normal peeps"

[Anonymous Coward]

...who are also, through no fault of their own, for the most part, ignorant of Microsoft's past, current and continuing crimes.

Arguing from ignorance is not a solid foundation for a quality decision.

User's opinions should, for the most part, be largely ignored unless they are well spoken and formulated.

This report, which will be biased in favor of Microsoft, should also be largely ignored.

The leadership in Britain aren't stupid, just somewhat ignorant of the freedoms they surrender by choosing Microsoft products.

Education, as always, is the key. I'm sure the report will portray Microsoft as smelling all flowery (which is a falsehood) but the free software proponents will poke holes in it pretty fast and the evaluators will see the truth.

Its all relative...

[CrypticSpawn]

It is all relative, Linux is far cheaper than Windows. One, I don't have to pay for alot of the software I use. Two, I can administer it myself, since I have lived on unix since college. In contrast, for me, I don't really know how to administer Microsoft, and wouldn't want to leave it wide open, so I would have to hire someone to administer it for me. Not to mention the cost of just the operating system itself, then have to buy all the software I require to use on it. So far for my situation, microsoft cost way more.

Re:Its all relative...

[ishmaelflood]

Yes it is all relative. Linux cannot run the software I need at work on a day to day basis, therefore it is worthless, at work.

Even at home I would be hardpushed to run Linux instead of say NT4, which cost me, oh thirty bucks I think, and installed with a minimum of intervention on my part. So, basically, if Linux takes me half an hour longer to set up and use, then NT is cheaper. Even ignoring nstall time, since OO takes a couple of minutes to start every time, whereas Excel fires up instantly, if I use NT for fifteen days I am ahead.

And of course, the MS license says I can use Office at home for free, so I didn't have to pay for that.

auditing as business promotion?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would anyone else feel highly insulted by having an outside company audit their business without an invitation? That would be enough for me to shut the door in faces.

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[Maxhrk]

linus created it, Bill buy technology. I think i will go with linus.

Sorry, But It dont matter if it is old technology or not, we has to improves the technology even it is too old. or we can remove somethin from the hood and and add it, improves it and so on.

now about language, I think I likes C better than VB, dont ask me. I dont want to go deep more than that.

lastly, I do think Linux ALREADY ready for the desktop.

Hey It is my opinions. smile!

Previous experience suggests....

[mormop]

That Microsoft paid for tests and surveys generally say what Microsoft would like them to e.g. running Win 2003 server against a Linux install that just happens to be running the slowest Linux file system on or running a heavily Microsft Engineer tuned 2k server against a Red hat default install.

The question is will people be stupid enough to believe it without scrutinising the results

Re:MS works for me (Not a troll, please read)

[mormop]

This really is such a stupid "brain off" list of idiotic statements. Apache crashes all the time? Yeah OK that's why 60% of the worlds web servers run it.

Please, oh please publish your name so that companies can avoid hiring your "consultancy" services and save themselves vast amounts of money in the process.

BTW, there's a guy from SCO at the door want's to hire you for their press office.

"Free Software" is not the same as "Open Source"

[jbn-o]

If you want to compete with Free Software, the only way you can truly compete is at the cost of use level.

From the accounts I've read so far, this sounds to me like a setup to fail--they're not talking about competing with Free Software at all, they're talking about competing with Open Source. And as we all know, Open Source doesn't speak to the same concerns as Free Software. "Free Software" talks to all computer users about the freedoms to share and modify software (essentially a social movement) while "Open Source" doesn't talk about software freedom. Instead, "Open Source" talks chiefly to businesses about faster, cheaper, and less buggy software development (essentially a development methodology).

If you only talk about the cost of this or that you ignore the salient freedoms that make Free Software more attractive over non-free software. I would never want to trade in my freedom of leveraging a world of skilled developers for the cost of buying into a monopoly (as all proprietary software is). I also place a high value on being able to run the same system on many different computers simply by installing another copy of that system. I wouldn't be as effective doing my business without the freedoms to share and modify software. I can't help but wonder what set of factors this study will consider since, from what I've seen so far, they appear to place no value on software freedom. I look forward to reading the completed study.

Matt Lambert and I

[Open Council]

Matt Lambert and I were, until recently, elected members of the same Council, one that was contolled jointly by Matt's party (Liberal Democrats) and the independents (of which I was one). Despite some of you thinking that all MS people are the devil's spawn, he is a really nice guy.

I had the unenviable responsability of overhauling the Council's IT structure and of introducing e-government. Although i was able to ensure that the contracts for document management, financial and GIS systems included guarantees that the suppliers would support their software on Linux desktops, I totally failed to get Matt's party to support my requests for the resources to run trials of OpenOffice on Windows and of a Linux Desktop.

Matt Lambert took absolutely no part in these discussions but I was supprised to be accused by a Councillor from his party, in a public session, of wanting an open source trial because "I hated Microsoft". I definitely don't hate Microsoft.

It was partly because of my experience that i set up the Open Council site to push the case for Open Source in local government. Microsoft's willingness to pay for this audit only goes to reinforce my assertion that local government is a critical area in the campaign to popularise Open Source and deserves more attention and support from the open source movement.

Knowing the way that local government works, my worry with this Newham situation is that it may just be a ploy to get cheap software from MS and that, in exchange for a big discount, the Council will agree that Open Source is too expensive. The results of this audit need to be closely scruitinised.

Re:Matt Lambert and I

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing the way that local government works, my worry with this Newham situation is that it may just be a ploy to get cheap software from MS and that, in exchange for a big discount

Pray tell me, what exactly is wrong with Newham council getting a "big discount" from Microsoft as you put it, and saving taxpayers money?

As someone who lived in Pliastow and payed heavy taxes to Newham Council, I will have nothing but admiration for Newham council if they got some discount from Micrsoft or got the best TCO that they can by chosing Microsoft software and saving the long suffering tax payers of Newham some money for a change instead of wasting tax payers'hard earned money all the time!

Why on earth should people pay more taxes just because some loony left crazies at the council hate America or hate Microsoft?
Newham is NOT Munich, where they actually paid to the tune of $10 MORE for a Suse Linux solution than the offer Microsoft made to them.

This blatant disregard for the interest of taxpayers and an eagerness to score cheap political points, might go a long way towards explaning why German unemployment is now running at nearly TWICE the rate of that in the USA and the German economy has been going nowhere for the past 10 years!

Re:Matt Lambert and I

[Open Council]

As i understand it, Newham was one of those Councils who were recently told by Microsoft that they site licence conditions had been changed and that they would have to pay almost an extra 1 Million to keep the software they'd already bought.

As for the discount itself. Even with the discount, Going with software will still cost the ratepayers an awful lot of money. It will be of even less value if the deal that they do to get this discount costs Newham tax payers a lot more money in the future.

I notice from your other postings that you are filled with an enormous amount of hatred for almost everyone and everything and because of your personality problem cannot conceive of anybody else making any choices other than on the grounds of hatred. I know its difficult to understand but there are some people who actually want to make rational decisions and therefore demand that the comparison is a fair one.

I do not believe that taxpayers should be fleeced just to maintain an illegal monoply and reward illegal business practises .. Or haven't you noticed that time and again in the US courts, and elswhere, MS has been found guilty of establishing its monopoly by illegal business practises.

Nor do i think that tax-payers should pay more taxes than they need to just because some crazie hates all software that isn't Microsoft's.

Re:Matt Lambert and I

[Anonymous Coward]

As i understand it, Newham was one of those Councils who were recently told by Microsoft that they site licence conditions had been changed and that they would have to pay almost an extra 1 Million to keep the software they'd already bought
"As you understand it?"
Well you understand it wrong buddy!
In fact Microsoft has been CUTTING prices across the board to the UK Goverment and UK Government entities including this latest contract with the NHS. Extract:

"NHS Microsoft licence move to save millions

Health service will move half a million licences over to government volume buying deal...

The NHS is planning to move half a million software licences over to a central government agreement with Microsoft that will save UK taxpayers millions of pounds.

The health service currently has a three-year volume subscription licensing deal with Microsoft, signed in October 2001, but it is already in talks with Microsoft to switch these to a bulk discount agreement brokered by the government's procurement agency last year.

The switch will double the number of licences purchased by the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) and consequently trigger much bigger discount levels.

silicon.com understands that the improved discount from the addition of the NHS licences will equate to an average 12 per licence saving for government departments and agencies buying Microsoft software through the OGC deal.

Neil Jordan, head of healthcare at Microsoft UK, admitted there will be increased savings for the government but would not be drawn on the exact figure, saying there are different discount levels and prices for different groups of products.

He said: "There are different discount levels for server and desktop products. It would make a significant difference to both"

http://www.silicon.com/hardware/desktops/0,39024 64 5,10005216,00.htm

Given the recent Microsoft tendency to offer massive discounts to UK and other Goverment entities, I doubt it very much if your "understanding " is in any way correct.
Yet more linux FUD anyone?

As for the discount itself. Even with the discount, Going with software will still cost the ratepayers an awful lot of money. It will be of even less value if the deal that they do to get this discount costs Newham tax payers a lot more money in the future.

The cost of buying the software cd constitues an UNDERWHELMING under 6% of IT costs.
We haven't even talked about speed to market of developing software (in which Microsoft simply smokes linux) or the availability of vital commercial software on that platform( Windows again smokes linux) or the very real likelihood of massive lawsuites from every kind of company out there whose IP has been stolen and ilegally misappropriated into linux.
In fact the very process of developing linux actually ENCOURAGES stealing other people's code as one notorious email from Linus Torvalds exhorted his followers to more or less go out and steal other people's IP and then put them into linux!
When you buy Microsoft, you KNOW that Microsoft gives you a bullet proof legal immunity from ant lawsuits, gicen that Microsoft has more lawyers and togher lawyers than anyone out there.
End game: Going with linux is a very very expensive option. Its like being penny wise, pound foolish! Cheap things are expensive. There is no free lunch anywhere!

I notice from your other postings that you are filled with an enormous amount of hatred for almost everyone and everything and because of your personality problem cannot conceive of anybody else making any choices other than on the grounds of hatred
Yeah?
I think its the Europeans who are filled with hatred towards everyone and who went to Africa and other colonies to go and commit mass muder, including the holocausr carried out by Belgium in the Congo and even before Nazi germany carried out their own holocaust.

After all, you don't see Americans spewing o

Re:Matt Lambert and I

[Open Council]

The NHS "discount" is a sham .. It is you who are misinformed ..

As at the time of the MS change of Licence cost I was the person responsible for the IT budget of a major Council, i do know more about. ALL councils were presented with retrospective supplimentary bills from Microsoft. Our Council was faced with paying a minimum of 250,000 (if we bought retail) to 400,000 (if we stayed with the site agreement). Newham have 4 times as many PC's as we had and were faced with much greater extra costs. That was why all the Councils (including Newham) got together to object publicly.

You obviously were blind to all those public objections. If you did then you would have noticed that it was the supporters of capitalism, not the anti-capitalists, who objected loudest.

The NHS "discount" you refer to is a discount on the new higher cost that MS was trying to impose. Yes it was a saving on what they could have ended up paying but it was still about 45% more than they would have paid had not unilaterally changed the site licence contract.

I notice that you don't disagree with the statement that MS has been found guilty.

They should do my taxes

[kurt555gs]

Now wait, lets think. Some auditor is going to come up with some math that says PAYING for software is less than FREE software.

My kid flunked pre-algebra last year, maybe she should apply to M$ for an auditor job.

If i charge a whole bunch of money for buggy software, which of the following statements are true.

A. Free software costs more?
B. Free software costs less
C. Tinfoil hats protect you.

I am wondering if M$ is manufacturing software or bulls*&t

cheers

Re:They should do my taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Now wait, lets think. Some auditor is going to come up with some math that says PAYING for software is less than FREE software

When did Red Hat or Suse Linux enterprise servers, costing several thousand dollars per copy,ever become "free"?
If commercial linux (the only linux that Fortune 500 and goverments will use to run mission critical servers) is so free, how come that when Munich chose Suse Linux over Microsoft, they ended up spending to the tune of at least $10 million MORE than Microsoft's bid on just the cost of software alone? We haven't even added in the massive EXTRA TCO they are going to incur, not possible massive legal fees they face from all kinds of companies whose Intellectual property and copyrighted material have been missappropriated into the linux base code!

This is yet even more linux disinformation, propaganda , lies, distortions and half-truths coming from another linux shill!
It won't work, boy!

Re:They should do my taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

This is yet even more linux disinformation, propaganda , lies, distortions and half-truths

Yep, at least you admit it.

The grass is always greener

[Smallpond]

Yeah. No problems in Open Source software:

Bugzilla.Mozilla.org - Bug 224000
Pressing Get Msgs button results in "no new messages on server" even when new mail is available

Yes, that's 224,000 bugs in Mozilla. You ever try to track one down? I have. Having the source in order to find bugs isn't very useful on a program this size. And Mozilla source is all web-accessible and cross-referenced. (Hey, almost 250,000 bugs. Bet there will be a /. article)

The main reason to have the source is so that I can access my data, not the code. Its "free" in the sense that I can take it someplace else instead of being forced to buy software upgrades. That's way more important (at least to me) than being able to find or fix bugs.

TCO

[El]

Windows only wins out in cost of use if all your users are already trained to use Windows.

The people doing the audit

[BillsPetMonkey]

are Cap Gemini Ernst and Young.

"IT Auditors"? Really? Pay them $50,000 and they'll say whatever you want them to say. And that's before they actually do anything. I have a friend from my university days working there. She studied Art History, and that's the extent of her technical expertise. But she's very nice to look at. Which sums up the company.

Integrity? It's a management err ... "consultancy"! What did you expect?

actually 19.7%, not 85%

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft's numbers for Q1/03 were:

Revenues $8.22B
NOI $3.15B ... for a net margin of 19.7%.

http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY04/earn _r el_q1_04.mspx

Re:actually 19.7%, not 85%

[timeOday]

Fair enough, but I did specify the OS division for a certain period, not the entire company for a different period. Microsoft's cash cows feed the money-losing divisions: XBox, MSN, Windows CE, and business services. (They might as well spend it; with something like $40 Billion in the bank already, they can't justify witholding dividends from investors any more.) Funny how they have such trouble turning a buck on products when people have other choices.

lockpicking book

[Anonymous Coward]

quality lockpicking book for sale at http://cafeshops.com/hackingtexts