We got one of those heartbeat bears as a gift for my son two years ago. It didn't have a chance to put anyone to sleep as our West Highland Terrier attacked it whenever it was turned on. We're talking about Monty Python rabbit attack here -- jumping frantically and flying through the air.
I agree with your reasoning. There are many products where the switchover can be done without grief.
Your example of Windows adaptation is spot on. Basically, as good money will always replace bad, current and applicable skill sets (good) will eventually replace obsolete ones (bad).
My main concern is that the change not be made in such a drastic fashion that the initial skill demand grossly exceeds the skill supply (and thereby increase costs) for longer than necessary.
The article makes a strong point regarding the difficulty of running this software in existing agencies. The trained user/administrator base is just not there.
Being a former state employee, I can just imagine the Governor or Legislature mandating the use of Open Source software. Consultants like myself will make even more money off SG than we already do now.
From a selfish point of view, by all means go for it and require Open Source software. I'll do OK. As an uninterested but informed taxpayer, I'd be a little leery about it, however.
I'm a firm believer of using the right tools for the job. Using Open Source is most definitely a viable option in many environments. Requiring it when a commercial option is more cost effective just does not make good business sense. (And there are places where commercial is most definitely better.)
Anyone with any political awareness will know that this is common practice.
Microsoft is not the only corporation/group/club/association that practices this technique. I've received letters to forward from groups all over the political spectrum, including corps. and non-profits. As the article clearly stated -- the letters were not sent by MS (or their agents) directly. They were sent by the customer. This is not fraud. It's really just another form of signing a petition.
An alltime classic! The irony is that I nearly succumbed to it when I read your post. Whatever you do, do NOT post the rest of the joke. I'd hate to see Slashdot go the way of Napster.
For those interested, John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern covered this in significant detail in their book The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1947).
I analyzed and programmed the modified bidding poker game as part of my Master's thesis in 1988. I created many different players, including the "perfect, but don't bluff" , "always raise" and "always fold" bidders. I also created a player that played the von Neumann strategy. I filled out the roster with a couple of "decent" players with varying strategies.
Over time, I had each of these play. The von Neumann player used the bluffing strategy a percentage of time calculated from the relative weight of the "high" and "low" bids, in conjunction with the value of the hand he held compared to the possible number of hands.
The von Neumann strategy killed all of those players. I then programmed an adaptive player who learned how much he won or lost against each of the players for hands of a given value while playing a particular strategy. As von Neumann postulated, his strategy lost to the adaptive player due to gaps caused by the small differences in rational fractions of his bidding strategy as opposed to the continuous calculations I was able to use with my player.
All in all, it was a great experience to walk in the shoes of such a giant and it gave me a lot of practice with my Turbo Pascal.
Slashdot Mirror
We got one of those heartbeat bears as a gift for my son two years ago. It didn't have a chance to put anyone to sleep as our West Highland Terrier attacked it whenever it was turned on. We're talking about Monty Python rabbit attack here -- jumping frantically and flying through the air.
I agree with your reasoning. There are many products where the switchover can be done without grief.
Your example of Windows adaptation is spot on. Basically, as good money will always replace bad, current and applicable skill sets (good) will eventually replace obsolete ones (bad).
My main concern is that the change not be made in such a drastic fashion that the initial skill demand grossly exceeds the skill supply (and thereby increase costs) for longer than necessary.
The article makes a strong point regarding the difficulty of running this software in existing agencies. The trained user/administrator base is just not there.
Being a former state employee, I can just imagine the Governor or Legislature mandating the use of Open Source software. Consultants like myself will make even more money off SG than we already do now.
From a selfish point of view, by all means go for it and require Open Source software. I'll do OK. As an uninterested but informed taxpayer, I'd be a little leery about it, however.
I'm a firm believer of using the right tools for the job. Using Open Source is most definitely a viable option in many environments. Requiring it when a commercial option is more cost effective just does not make good business sense. (And there are places where commercial is most definitely better.)
Microsoft is not the only corporation/group/club/association that practices this technique. I've received letters to forward from groups all over the political spectrum, including corps. and non-profits. As the article clearly stated -- the letters were not sent by MS (or their agents) directly. They were sent by the customer. This is not fraud. It's really just another form of signing a petition.
An alltime classic! The irony is that I nearly succumbed to it when I read your post. Whatever you do, do NOT post the rest of the joke. I'd hate to see Slashdot go the way of Napster.
For those interested, John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern covered this in significant detail in their book The Theory of Games and Economic Behavior (1947).
I analyzed and programmed the modified bidding poker game as part of my Master's thesis in 1988. I created many different players, including the "perfect, but don't bluff" , "always raise" and "always fold" bidders. I also created a player that played the von Neumann strategy. I filled out the roster with a couple of "decent" players with varying strategies.
Over time, I had each of these play. The von Neumann player used the bluffing strategy a percentage of time calculated from the relative weight of the "high" and "low" bids, in conjunction with the value of the hand he held compared to the possible number of hands.
The von Neumann strategy killed all of those players. I then programmed an adaptive player who learned how much he won or lost against each of the players for hands of a given value while playing a particular strategy. As von Neumann postulated, his strategy lost to the adaptive player due to gaps caused by the small differences in rational fractions of his bidding strategy as opposed to the continuous calculations I was able to use with my player.
All in all, it was a great experience to walk in the shoes of such a giant and it gave me a lot of practice with my Turbo Pascal.