Lars Noodén wrote:
On 3/1/13 9:41 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
Munich in 2003 and Freiburg in 2007.
Comment: OpenOffice's Tale of Two Cities
http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Comment-OpenOffice-s-Tale-of-Two-Cities-1760502.html
Munich's program was successful and expanded. Freiburg's failed
and they reverted to Microsoft. Why? I will let you read the
article for that author's observations.
Bob
The Freiburg case makes it all the more clear that the total cost of
ownership should also include the exit cost and the cost of vendor
lock-in.
FYI: The US DoD policy for open source software says (I'm paraphrasing,
but this is the gist of it):
1. For the purposes of make/buy decisions, open source software = COTS
(Commercial Off the Shelf) - e.g., if you're looking at operating
systems, Windows, Solaris, AIM, Debian, Ubuntu, ... - whether it's open
source or not is immaterial (or put another way, you can't ignore open
source; or more affirmatively, open source is on a level playing field
when it comes to functionality and performance)
2. If you select an open source package, you HAVE to define/provide a
support plan - i.e., you can't just download and install a FOSS package
and be done with it. In practice this means you either go with
something like Redhat, and purchase a support plan, or allocate/hire
support staff.
This pretty much forces that lifecycle cost be considered.
It's a very interesting read, by the way, and there are a few people who
deserve a lot of credit fr making it happen.
http://mil-oss.org/resources/us-dod_policy-memo_clarifying-guidance-regarding-oss_16oct2009.pdf
Miles Fidelman
--
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is. .... Yogi Berra
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5130a415.8010...@meetinghouse.net
