Slashdot Mirror
Minnesota Moving To Microsoft's Cloud
An anonymous reader writes "The State of Minnesota is apparently the first state to move into the cloud, agreeing on a deal to have their messaging and collaboration services delivered through Microsoft's Business Online Productivity Suite. The thing the article doesn't tell you in detail is that the agreement precludes the use of open source software, which could have saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. And once such a large organization goes Microsoft, it's difficult to go back. Isn't it interesting that these developments occur right before elections, as senior officials are trying to keep their jobs with a new incoming administration? What do you think, Slashdotters? Is this a good move for Minnesota? Or a conservative move that bucks the trend of saving money and encouraging open government and transparency by aligning philosophy and practice with at least the option of utilizing open source software?"
That is unless someone cal tell me how a move to an [open source alternative] would be better. Even these OSS alternatives have to be supported. The last time I checked, their support was anemic! Just ask the University of California.
And who would provide support for the "OSS solution" hmmm? You gonna tell them to RTFM? What FOSS advocates never seem to get is there is a reason why companies like MSFT get these contracts, it is because someone at the MN governor's office can pick up the phone and say "WTF? HELP" and they WILL get support. If fact for a big contract like this they will probably get tier 1 first class "ass kissing and tripping over themselves to try to fix it" level of support, oh and from a SINGLE vendor. With FOSS you are gonna have one vendor for the server, another vendor for the IM and collaborative software (probably Scalix...eeew), yet another for the Office software. Is there any guarantees it'll even work? How much will retraining cost? Or converting their existent infrastructure?
The thing nobody seems to get when they say "just use FOSS" is that the cost of the software is so low as to be inconsequential especially on large scale contracts like this. Often it is the support (can't just send them to a forum!) the cost of retraining and hiring those capable of managing the new system (Linux gurus don't work cheap!) and converting the bazillion Excel macros and specialized apps and other costs that bite you in the ass. That is why companies, and yes governments are companies, even if they are badly run, go for the big guys like Google and MSFT. Because like it or not it is less headache in the long run, as the Swiss found out the hard way.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
People like the author of this story give my party good reason to think of Linux as liberal, however, I believe that open source was intended to be politically neutral. Many of you pretend to think it is still this way, while at the same time wishing the hot oil pit on all conservatives! There is a difference between progress and wishful thinking my friends. What most liberals fail to do is look at things from all angles I have noticed. For instance, gay marriage. Maybe homosexuality is not morally wrong, ok then, but the malice filled, nose upturned and false superiority attitude that comes with the majority of homos is morally and logically incorrect. Some of the less intelligent people in my party decided that linux was everything liberal, and because of these few retards spreading this rumor throughout the GOP, this is something that has stuck, and to add insult to injury, many of you regularly attack the Republicans, solidifying their belief that you are the enemy. To be fair, the reason about 30% of the people in my party are Republicans is from their wish to hide in the past, such as not believing in dinosaurs and evolution. Republicans are often a bunch of do-nothing fatasses, but democrats are a bunch of touchy-feely weasel faces that are willing to starve all of america to save an endangered breed of cockroach. I even hear them actually DEBATING on whether or not AIDS patients have the right to screw people without telling them they have AIDS first, "to protect their privacy". Sickening.