[QCLUG] Linux VS MS

[Mike Robinson]

I agree to disagree.  I can't say its not empire building, but I believe
it is more likely the need to have a belly button to push when something
doesn't work - RHEL being one of those.  In recent experience, I saw a
perfectly functioning Fedora Core server taken down and replaced with
RHEL because FC isn't "approved", so we now have a known entity to come
to our rescue (at a price).  A quite useful print screen utility
(windows based) was recently dumped as well - reason given was open
source.  Paranoia over peace of mind?

mike



On Thu, 2007-09-13 at 15:29 -0500, John Brun wrote:
> I am not sure if there is a stigma associated with government software,
> as much as there is an empire in the government that needs to be dealt
> with.   Software is decided nationally.  Somebody is some office makes
> the decision that "Word 2003 is now the only accepted format" and that
> is that.  The govt. spends the money and gets the software.  Same goes
> with operating systems.
> 
> Since the decision is based on the opinion of a handful of people then
> forced down the throats of the rest of the government entity, the
> software choices are usually limed to whatever Dell, or Gateway sells. 
> In my experience, the software "people" who make the decision aren't
> really that knowledgeable.  They rely on the rest of us (employees at
> the local offices) to do all the tech support and "fix" their problems. 
> The fact that Ubuntu, or SuSE, or even Windows 2000 would be better
> choices at certain offices doesn't ever come into play.  Just that we
> are told how we're to be set up.  (this is exactly why we don't want
> government deciding health care issues, but I'll leave that to the other
> forums)
> 
> One other thing. There are big national systems that are running on
> RHEL.  I use one every day.  I am not sure what the exact reasons for
> setting that system up was, ( i could guess security) but the system is
> virtually flawless.  
> 
> 
> John
> 
> Jim Hall wrote:
> > Mike Robinson wrote:
> >> What I've found is it always comes down to price.  People are always
> >> surprised (and excited) when I recommend open office - free sells!
> >>
> >> Once the user base is built (and large enough) you can demand
> >> compatibility, which is still the short fall for open office.
> >>
> >> Government acceptance would help to.  I work for the DoD and there is
> >> still a stigma associated with open source software that would be nice
> >> to break, as its my tax dollars being spent as well.
> >>
> >> Mike
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2007-09-07 at 17:15 -0700, RK wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> ******How can we make the non-technical users understand the
> >>> ******importance of the decision?
> >>>
> >>> Ron
> >>>
> >>> --- "McKnight, Lee" <LMcKnight@bandag.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
> >
> > The two questions above suggest: local tax payer groups?
> >
> > Also, with the number of different municipalities, other
> > jurisdictions, quasi-governmental organizations, and other non
> > governmental organizations that interact with government in and around
> > the QC we (and I do mean "WE" -- the members of QCLUG) can surely find
> > one who will give something like OOo a try, IF some of us are willing
> > to hold their hands while they go through the teething process. That
> > means some on-site and some phone support availability, folks. I know
> > the LUG was never intended to be a general help desk (and still
> > shouldn't), BUT, if you want to change the world, you have to get your
> > hands in the dirt. I'm doing my part where I am. How many of you are
> > willing to do the same, even a little bit??
> >
> > "Many hands make light work."
> > Jim
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > QCLUG mailing list
> > QCLUG@qclug.org
> > http://qclug.org/mailman/listinfo/qclug
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> QCLUG mailing list
> QCLUG@qclug.org
> http://qclug.org/mailman/listinfo/qclug