Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Government Boosts Open Source Adoption

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the here-comes-the-big-discount-offer-from-microsoft dept.

Cameron Logie writes "The UK Government has today announced full backing for greater adoption of Open Source solutions in the public sector. According to the article at the BBC News site, 'Government departments will be required to adopt open source software when "there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products" because of its "inherent flexibility."'"

8 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Correction! by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    when "there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products"

    Damn lies and statistics can be used to prove that open source is more expensive, then it doesn't get adopted.

  2. Clarity needed by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >>>"if there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products"

    So does that mean if MS Office costs $200, but OpenOffice costs $0, then the government employees can't adopt OpenOffice because there's a cost difference?

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:Clarity needed by sakdoctor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      TFA words it differently: "when it delivers best value for money"

      It still won't be cheaper, because of the costs of retraining every last government employee, including the retarded ones, to use the new software.

    2. Re:Clarity needed by TheNinjaroach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So does that mean if MS Office costs $200, but OpenOffice costs $0, then the government employees can't adopt OpenOffice because there's a cost difference?

      Deploying any piece of software requires proper planning, configuration, infrastructure and training. Even free software costs money to own, hence the 'overall cost' they refer to. This is a good thing though, it's what keeps us employed even though the software is 'free.'

      --
      I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
  3. Overall cost difference? by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    FTA:

    Government departments will be required to adopt open source software when "there is no significant overall cost difference between open and non-open source products" because of its "inherent flexibility".

    The problem is that the "overall cost" depends on how much marketing $$$ is thrown in.

  4. Re:Spin by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That claim is true in a narrow sense; but annoyingly misleading. "I see you, you see me, we both depend on memory" public spaces are a whole different animal from "I don't see you, your cameras see me, and whatever happens is indexed and recorded for who knows how long" public spaces.

    Small scale, socially driven, symmetric transparency vs. large scale, technologically sophisticated asymmetric transparency. "Public Space" has never meant "Panopticon", and anybody who wants to make it so is pushing a truly radical change.

  5. Re:Also licensing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    one of the terms of the license is you MUST buy a license for every computer that's physically capable of running the software.

    a) Suggest to MS that this clause might interest the European Comissioner for Competition.
    b) Watch said clause disappear as 'an oversight' 'left over from a previous version of the license'.

  6. Open format more important than open source by CustomDesigned · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As a citizen, I don't really care whether my gov (US) uses Microsoft, Mac, Solaris, Linux, or AmigaOS. I *do* care when they publish documents I need to work with in an undocumented proprietary format. And no, OOXML doesn't fix that (it only pretends to). Yes, I can get by with Open Office DOC importer for the time being.