What Ballmer fails to crow about, nor fails to mention is the cost and expense of the initial Microsoft rollout.
Given the initial rollout cost in a Microsoft platform would be in the billions for a new rollout, it's not hard to conceive that reconfiguring an entire civic network structure to embrace open source technology would have considerable costs than continuing to limp along with an insecure, bloated, and closed source technology family. This is due, by and large, with Munich technicians having already gathered years of experiencing patching Windows environments every day, and so therefore they can do this much quicker than they had been doing so originally.
Embracing a platform may have its speed bumps, but the success and self satisfaction of being able to deploy secure clients and servers will soon outweigh any teething problems the Munich techs are currently experiencing.
It's early days yet, and Ballmer's criticisms of open source rollouts of this magnitude are truly smoke and mirrors if subject to the clarity of a true competitive analysis once all of the facts and figures have been submitted and tallied.
Living with it doesn't have to be as painful an experience as you might think, however. The best practice I've yet heard of is where IT departments invoice the spammers for the lost productivity hours suffered as the result of inundated mail servers and mail service outtages suffered through poorly designed network topologies or lack of IT management savvy. It seems to me (imho) that as more and more corporations and personal computers use their computers for productivity and enjoyment the companies providing the unsolicited marketing interruptions into our days should be providing much more incentive (perks, paybacks, chotchkes) for those popups and other web application interfaces. Failing this, it should be legislated ( by the people, for the people ) that the companies responsible for these interruptions be required to accept invoice and process an account payable for each respondent who had, willing or not received said marketing verbage. The appropriate amount would be a calculated percentage based on the fee received by the marketer for the marketing push in direct and proportional relation to the amount of email that the public infrastructure ( the internet, billions and billions served TM ) needed to process. So as not to eliminate spam altogether, this will curtail mass mailings and ensure that marketing continues to be able to thrive, however, under a much more equitable arrangement for the infrastructure as a whole. Responsibility for the payment would be directed through the carrier as service provider to said marketing company, individual, anarcho-syndicalist commune, etc. The carrier, as well paid provider of the network services required to perpetrate such a mass marketing push would be responsible for its impact on the overall network in this scheme and would be required to take responsibility for its networked connections transmissions. This shift in responsibility for packets would balance the likelihood that service providers will continue to provide users with the ability to mass mail, or spam via web apps etc. ( insert your most loathesome client adware product here ). In order to protect carriers from inaccessible funds due to the inability of the marketer to pay, or potentially, other fraudulent marketing scams the carrier would be entitled to and recommended to take out insurance against such scenarios. This will force carriers to be more discerning as to whom they allow to connect to their services, and the appropriate credentials would be required when taking contract for the consumption of network services, thereby providing the government with a way of ultimately penalizing offenders, and protecting the public trust. These countermeasures and balances will curtail inappropriate network usage and promote more vigilance by carriers as to the content they're proliferating. The legislation should be multiply interoperative in various sectors so as to ensure that fairness and credibility be considered throughout. It wouldn't be easy legislation to write, but the fact that legislation is currently tabled gives rise to the possibility that a much more considerate approach could also be tabled, ratified, and maybe even "They signed you bill, now you're a law!" The polluters of our lakes and rivers have also been required to pay for cleanups and/or damages done to people and properties for their accidents or transgressions, it may be high time for netizens to push for a more 'network aware' government and ensure that pollution doesn't get out of hand in our new frontiers.
Slashdot Mirror
What Ballmer fails to crow about, nor fails to mention is the cost and expense of the initial Microsoft rollout.
Given the initial rollout cost in a Microsoft platform would be in the billions for a new rollout, it's not hard to conceive that reconfiguring an entire civic network structure to embrace open source technology would have considerable costs than continuing to limp along with an insecure, bloated, and closed source technology family. This is due, by and large, with Munich technicians having already gathered years of experiencing patching Windows environments every day, and so therefore they can do this much quicker than they had been doing so originally.
Embracing a platform may have its speed bumps, but the success and self satisfaction of being able to deploy secure clients and servers will soon outweigh any teething problems the Munich techs are currently experiencing.
It's early days yet, and Ballmer's criticisms of open source rollouts of this magnitude are truly smoke and mirrors if subject to the clarity of a true competitive analysis once all of the facts and figures have been submitted and tallied.
Living with it doesn't have to be as painful an experience as you might think, however. The best practice I've yet heard of is where IT departments invoice the spammers for the lost productivity hours suffered as the result of inundated mail servers and mail service outtages suffered through poorly designed network topologies or lack of IT management savvy. It seems to me (imho) that as more and more corporations and personal computers use their computers for productivity and enjoyment the companies providing the unsolicited marketing interruptions into our days should be providing much more incentive (perks, paybacks, chotchkes) for those popups and other web application interfaces. Failing this, it should be legislated ( by the people, for the people ) that the companies responsible for these interruptions be required to accept invoice and process an account payable for each respondent who had, willing or not received said marketing verbage. The appropriate amount would be a calculated percentage based on the fee received by the marketer for the marketing push in direct and proportional relation to the amount of email that the public infrastructure ( the internet, billions and billions served TM ) needed to process. So as not to eliminate spam altogether, this will curtail mass mailings and ensure that marketing continues to be able to thrive, however, under a much more equitable arrangement for the infrastructure as a whole. Responsibility for the payment would be directed through the carrier as service provider to said marketing company, individual, anarcho-syndicalist commune, etc. The carrier, as well paid provider of the network services required to perpetrate such a mass marketing push would be responsible for its impact on the overall network in this scheme and would be required to take responsibility for its networked connections transmissions. This shift in responsibility for packets would balance the likelihood that service providers will continue to provide users with the ability to mass mail, or spam via web apps etc. ( insert your most loathesome client adware product here ). In order to protect carriers from inaccessible funds due to the inability of the marketer to pay, or potentially, other fraudulent marketing scams the carrier would be entitled to and recommended to take out insurance against such scenarios. This will force carriers to be more discerning as to whom they allow to connect to their services, and the appropriate credentials would be required when taking contract for the consumption of network services, thereby providing the government with a way of ultimately penalizing offenders, and protecting the public trust. These countermeasures and balances will curtail inappropriate network usage and promote more vigilance by carriers as to the content they're proliferating. The legislation should be multiply interoperative in various sectors so as to ensure that fairness and credibility be considered throughout. It wouldn't be easy legislation to write, but the fact that legislation is currently tabled gives rise to the possibility that a much more considerate approach could also be tabled, ratified, and maybe even "They signed you bill, now you're a law!" The polluters of our lakes and rivers have also been required to pay for cleanups and/or damages done to people and properties for their accidents or transgressions, it may be high time for netizens to push for a more 'network aware' government and ensure that pollution doesn't get out of hand in our new frontiers.