[QCLUG] Linux VS MS

[Jim Hall]

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
On 9/13/07, John Brun <j.brun@mchsi.com> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
>


Two observations.
1)  I'm not so sure that what the City of Davenport runs is determined in
D.C. BTW, part of their system was/is UNIX.
2)  RHEL is, if I'm not mistaken, a "support by customer pay" version of Red
Hat. There are the expected contracts and "pick up the phone and someone
comes". The reason governments and almost all businesses except "Mom & Pops"
love this system is because (as you said), they are not knowledgeable. And,
far more importantly, they are not culpable if and when it breaks; but will
take the credit if it works. So it's much the safer thing for their careers.

At any rate, we are really only able to deal with the greater QC area. I
hope that's an easier nut to crack.

Jim

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://qclug.org/pipermail/qclug/attachments/fae8263a/attachment.htm

---------------------- multipart/alternative attachment--