Doug Mentohl wrote:
> "SOFTWARE GIANT Microsoft has denied slashing the price of Windows XP
> in a bid to get Birmingham City Council to drop its Linux project"
>
> "Bob Griffiths, international secretary at SOCITM, the association for
> public sector IT professionals confirmed that Microsoft had been
> "involved in negotiations" with Birmingham"
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35941
>
> http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.os.linux.suse/msg/7935b9e299a5ec2a?hl=en&;
<quote>
Timms said the council had compared the cost of the Linux desktop
migration with an upgrade to Windows XP, and had found that a Microsoft
upgrade would be cheaper. Most of the difference was made up of costs
attributed to "decision making" and "project management", largely
brought about because of a shortage of skills in open-source networking
and the changes to IT processes that would result.
</quote>
Put more simply, the political infighting, sponsored by Microsoft
backed advocates, combined with legal and political tactics conducted
by those with "The Microsoft Religeon", could tie up the decision
making and implementation for decades.
Ironically, many of the machines were probably already "Linux enabled"
prior to the actual "official" declaration, and nearly all of the
"Costs" involved the official acknowledgement of something that had
already happened.
But since Microsoft's legal department could demand weeks, even months
worth of hearings and expert testimony and complex reviews and other
legal actions, for teh conversion of 200 PCs, the cost would have been
534,000 british pounds, about $1 million in US or Euros. This was
based on 1500 machines. About $600 per machine in administrative
costs, vs about $500 per machine to upgrade to Windows XP.
My guess is that the additional cost involved such secondary expenses
as a complete and manual audit of all PCs to prove that Windows had
been completely removed from all of the machines converted to Linux.
The irony is that the $500/machine for Windows XP was almost the same
price as the "disposable" Windows-only PCs being sold as loss-leaders,
because of sagging demand.
I think that publicly elected officials making decisions on how to
spend public funds from taxes, owe a COMPLETE and FULL DISCLOSURE - and
that Microsoft has absolutely no right to request any form of
nondisclosure requirements. The full details of every contract with
these public government agencies and all contacts with public
officials, over a matter not involving national security, should not be
allowed to be conducted behind closed doors in "cigar smoke filled
rooms" - or in Microsoft's case, a room filled with smoke and mirrors
in which the opposition is not allowed to proprely interrogate
representatitives and to deal with the opposition.
|
|
