High Plains Thumper <highplainsthumper@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> This article posted several months ago, illustrates that OpenOffice
> and
Several months ago.
Can you not find anything new to copy and post?
Even by your standards, you are failing. Post the link. You do not need
to "do a Roy" and steal the lot.
> its commercial featured version called StarOffice have come to the point
> where now they can compete with Microsoft Office.
>
> The article also makes an interesting point on market share and how much
> of it is dependent upon older versions of the office suite to boost the
> percentage. It also speaks of barriers created by Microsoft.
>
> http://www.crn.com/software/197007458?pgno=3
>
> Microsoft Office: Any Alternatives?
>
> [quote]
> Most researchers put Microsoft Office's share of the market at more than
> 90 percent. However, virtually all that market share comprises old
> versions of the product. And among IT shops that haven't opted into
> long-term volume licensing with Microsoft--often because of cost
> considerations--multiple versions abound. Having, say, three different
> versions of office-productivity software among office workers can be a
> helpdesk nightmare and add to IT's total support burden.
>
> Microsoft, however, has masterfully created barriers to switching from its
> Office product. The lock-in comes from a number of sources: Because of
> Office's high retail price, companies turn to OEM licenses, which are tied
> to hardware. Such licenses cannot be transferred to newer computers, and
> the nontransferability leads organizations to seek out volume licensing,
> with various stipulations and fiscal incentives that call for long-term
> contracts. It's akin to signing a multiyear cell-phone agreement, knowing
> that prices will fall as soon as you sign. (For more on Microsoft
> volume-licensing programs, see the list of links provided with this story
> on page 1. Also see "Street Pricing of Microsoft Office" in the image
> gallery).
>
> For many organizations that lease equipment to replace PCs, using
> Microsoft Office means having to purchase new licenses or continue to pay
> on a volume-license agreement. Economic reality dictates that some
> companies can't do this on an ongoing basis. For Haugland's clients, which
> range from large, publicly traded restaurant companies to big local
> governments, it's all about the money. One client saved $300,000 right off
> the bat by making the switch (see "Cost Savings of a Microsoft Divorce and
> an OpenOffice Marriage" in the image gallery).
> [/quote]
>
> Here is the "Cost Savings of a Microsoft Divorce and
> an OpenOffice Marriage" article:
>
> http://www.networkcomputing.com/gallery/2007/0219/comparison_
> WordProcessing.jhtml;jsessionid=OFWLQYZYAEFOWQSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/2l65kg
>
> [quote]
> Office Suite Comparison
> WORD PROCESSING
>
> Open source offerings have closed the gap with Microsoft Office, including
> in look and feel. In fact, times it's difficult to tell them apart.
>
> Take a look at these two screenshots. Can you tell which one is Microsoft
> Word and which is OpenOffice.org Writer?
> [/quote]
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2003-02-26-desktop_x.htm
>
> Ernie Ball was one who found out the hard way, that through legal
> action of the BSA according to this article, 8 unlicensed copies of
> Microsoft Office cost him dearly.
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/6ke0
>
> [quote]
> Updated 2/28/2003 3:33 PM
> Rivals chip away at Microsoft's dominance
> By Byron Acohido, USA TODAY
>
> SEATTLE — Sterling Ball is Microsoft-free. Two years ago, the maker of
> Ernie Ball electric guitars and strings was slapped with a $90,000 fine by
> the Business Software Alliance for what the company says was unwitting use
> of eight unlicensed copies of Microsoft Office.
>
> Microsoft then clipped a news story referring to Ernie Ball's run-in with
> the BSA, an industry association it co-founded, and attached it to a
> letter to area businesses warning they could face similar fines. The
> letter also pitched Microsoft software upgrades as a way to eliminate that
> risk. Ball paid the fine. Then he wiped Windows and Office off his firm's
> 80 personal computers and switched to "open-source code" software
> programs, which do much of what Microsoft's products do at a fraction of
> the cost.
>
> The flagship open-source product is the Linux operating system.
> [/quote]
>
> I still find his statements apt on his switch to Linux, OpenOffice and
> other software products as replacements for Microsoft:
>
> http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-5065859.html
>
> [quote]
> Ernie Ball is pretty much known as a musician's buddy. How does it feel to
> be a technology guru, as well?
>
> I think it's great for me to be a technology influence. It shows how
> ridiculous it is that I can get press because I switched to OpenOffice.
> And the reason why is because the myth has been built so big that you
> can't survive without Microsoft, so that somebody who does get by without
> Microsoft is a story.
>
> It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your
> organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a
> backwards organization. We're progressive; we've won communications and
> design awards...The fact that I'm not sending my e-mail through Outlook
> doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm speaking to a
> standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a
> different piece of software--that's hysterical.
> [/quote]
>
> Ernie's statement about cost of ownership is apt. Also, he was able to
> tailor his computing environment to the needs of the employee. The
> internet browser is not tightly coupled to Linux desktop and can be
> removed or locked out, if not needed.
>
> [quote]
> But there's a real argument now about total cost of ownership, once you
> start adding up service, support, etc.
>
> What support? I'm not making calls to Red Hat; I don't need to. I think
> that's propaganda...What about the cost of dealing with a virus? We don't
> have 'em. How about when we do have a problem, you don't have to send some
> guy to a corner of the building to find out what's going on--he never
> leaves his desk, because everything's server-based. There's no doubt that
> what I'm doing is cheaper to operate. The analyst guys can say whatever
> they want.
>
> The other thing is that if you look at productivity. If you put a bunch of
> stuff on people's desktops they don't need to do their job, chances are
> they're going to use it. I don't have that problem. If all you need is
> word processing, that's all you're going to have on your desktop, a word
> processor. It's not going to have Paint or PowerPoint. I tell you what,
> our hits to eBay went down greatly when not everybody had a Web browser.
> For somebody whose job is filling out forms all day, invoicing and
> exporting, why do they need a Web browser? The idea that if you have 2,000
> terminals they all have to have a Web browser, that's crazy. It just
> creates distractions.
> [/quote]
>
> He found greater freedom in making use of older hardware that functions
> very well in the Linux environment. The ability to amortise hardware over
> a longer period of time means greater savings that can be put to other
> uses.
>
> [quote]
> Any thoughts on SCO's claims on Linux?
>
> I don't know the merits of the lawsuit, but I run their Unix and I'm
> taking it off that system. I just don't like the way it's being handled. I
> feel like I'm being threatened again.
>
> They never said anything to me, and if I was smart, I probably wouldn't
> mention it. But I don't like how they're doing it. What they're doing is
> casting a shadow over the whole Linux community. Look, when you've got
> Windows 98 not being supported, NT not being supported, OS/2 not being
> supported--if you're a decision maker in the IT field, you need to be able
> to look at Linux as something that's going to continue to be supported.
> It's a major consideration when you're making those decisions.
>
> What if SCO wins?
>
> There are too many what-ifs. What if they lose? What if IBM buys them? I
> really don't know, and I'll cross that bridge when I come to it. But I
> can't believe somebody really wants to claim ownership of Linux...it's not
> going to make me think twice.
>
> You see, I'm not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don't think
> there's any such thing as free software. I think there's a cost in
> implementing all of it. How much of a cost depends on whom you talk to.
> Microsoft and some analysts will tell you about all the support calls and
> service problems. That's hysterical. Have they worked in my office? I can
> find out how many calls my guys have made to Red Hat, but I'm pretty sure
> the answer is none or close to it...It just doesn't crash as much as
> Windows. And I don't have to buy new computers every time they come out
> with a new release and abandon the old one.
> [/quote]
--
|
|
