Get You Open Source Skills Up To Date

[ralphmalph]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12905303

There is some very sensible stuff in this report. First point I would make is that the Civil Servants seem to know what was wrong with things under the previous govt which begs the question of were they not listened too or did they just not bother offering advice.

So no projects over 100million - good and hopefully means the use of local smaller UK companies and staff instead of the current mega companies taking govt contracts and shipping staff in from India funded by taxpayers money.

Also the move to open source is good as well but they seem to think that Open source is less secure than MS technologies errr doh??? We as taxpayers should not buy one MS or Google product as long as they persist with massive corporate tax avoidance.

Using in house staff not contractors again good.

So perhaps we will see some sensible IT implementations over the next 4 years.

As an annectdottal I was chatting to a friend this morning that has sold a lot of software into govt and he just happen to mention that his largest govt customer was moving open source lock stock and barrel and had not purchased anything off in the past govt financial year.

[Si1]

Using in house staff not contractors again good.

surely there's some mistake - this was a nice way to offer humungous effective payrises to staff by taking them on to do the same role but as private contracters, they could then claim to be private sector and therefore wealth generating

think of all the wealth that it generates!

[OnionTerror]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12905303

There is some very sensible stuff in this report. First point I would make is that the Civil Servants seem to know what was wrong with things under the previous govt which begs the question of were they not listened too or did they just not bother offering advice.

So no projects over 100million - good and hopefully means the use of local smaller UK companies and staff instead of the current mega companies taking govt contracts and shipping staff in from India funded by taxpayers money.

Also the move to open source is good as well but they seem to think that Open source is less secure than MS technologies errr doh??? We as taxpayers should not buy one MS or Google product as long as they persist with massive corporate tax avoidance.

Using in house staff not contractors again good.

So perhaps we will see some sensible IT implementations over the next 4 years.

As an annectdottal I was chatting to a friend this morning that has sold a lot of software into govt and he just happen to mention that his largest govt customer was moving open source lock stock and barrel and had not purchased anything off in the past govt financial year.

Is there much Open Office can't do? There's a big saving there, straight away... How about Windows to Linux?

[tomandlu]

Is there much Open Office can't do? There's a big saving there, straight away... How about Windows to Linux?

I'd imagine this is more about the back-end server-side of things. Moving away from Windows on the desktops would probably be a false economy (unless your applications are all web-based). Most front ends are written in delphi or similar.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

Is there much Open Office can't do? There's a big saving there, straight away... How about Windows to Linux?

I use Linux myself, but I can only imagine how much hundreds of thousands of civil servants all saying "the document doesn't show up properly" all day every day will cost.

Save money by buying apple products? lol

[Bloo Loo]

in house staff?

so that'll be one programmer, one manager, one HR, one Diversity bod, One part time cover, one specifier, one budget controller, five PAs and two dozen Ipad 2's.

[CasualBear]

Save money by buying apple products? lol

I have about 15 desktops at a startup. 14 macs and one PC (for SAGE). Outsourced the support, and the Macs have had not one incident while the PC has cost many hundreds of pounds in support.

IMO open office never flies because: if a user sees a problem with open office, that is your fault for making them use open office. On the other hand, a problem with MS office is just the way the world works and they will not complain. So my company waves through thousands of pounds in office licenses every few years just so people can attach a word document to an email occasionally.

Don't even get me started on exchange servers, though.

[GordonBrownSpentMyFuture]

Google Docs.

No installation, no maintenance, easy to use.

Of course, there are some things it can't do. Yet.

[manchester50]

I've been involved (historically and currently) in numerous large-scale government contracts, and I wouldn't take anything within that article as meaningful, nor making any difference to future projects. There would be little appetite for most of the recommended changes and there are many ways to circumvent them should any become policy.

[OnionTerror]

Google Docs.

No installation, no maintenance, easy to use.

Of course, there are some things it can't do. Yet.

Wouldn't work..Having a cloud based system means that you have no overall control over the documentation uploaded... You're effectively giving control over to Google. That's why Defence companies find this idea a no no... Google Docs is rather limited in its features too..

Edited March 30, 2011 by Dave Beans

[Snagger]

I work in a mixed environment, in summary the Linux users are teccy enough to not need support, the Windows PCs are highly managed, and with tools like sccm and AD managing 1000s of PCs is becoming a trivial task and generates very few support calls these days.

That leaves the Macs, by far our biggest headache, they create proportionatly far more support calls. Apple don't cater for Enterprise enviornments beyond paying lipservice, and are even moving out of the market by scrapping their x-servers. Not an enterprise solution imho.

[matroskin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12905303

There is some very sensible stuff in this report.

Yeah I smell a rat though

Tony Blair's former IT chief has said Labour ministers ordered expensive computer projects because they wanted their policies to "sound sexy".

Ian Watmore - who is now in charge of a Whitehall efficiency drive

Mr Watmore, who claims to have already saved £2bn in Whitehall efficiencies,

So this guy is Coalition's effciciency chief, less than 12 months in the job and already saved £2Bn?

Why then UK debt is still increasing? Or did he save £2Bn on his past job?

[GordonBrownSpentMyFuture]

Wouldn't work..Having a cloud based system means that you have no overall control over the documentation uploaded... You're effectively giving control over to Google. That's why Defence companies find this idea a no no... Google Docs is rather limited in its features too..

Yeah I agree... but for small businesses and start ups I think it's a very viable option.

I'm a big fan of Open Office, and there's just some stuff I wouldn't submit to "the cloud", but I think it offers a great deal of potential.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

I have about 15 desktops at a startup. 14 macs and one PC (for SAGE). Outsourced the support, and the Macs have had not one incident while the PC has cost many hundreds of pounds in support.

Why, if you're only running SAGE on it?

[OnionTerror]

Yeah I agree... but for small businesses and start ups I think it's a very viable option.

I'm a big fan of Open Office, and there's just some stuff I wouldn't submit to "the cloud", but I think it offers a great deal of potential.

Does anyone know how Cloud Computing & the data protection act sit together? Would only certain people be able to control the servers, and wot not? How about if the servers are hosted outside the UK?

[singlemalt]

Sometimes I don’t get the anti-capitalist anti-commercial sentiments on here.

Tell me what’s wrong with a company like MS, Oracle, Siebel, etc, whoever basically! from developing s/w and then getting paid for it?

Did the s/w just magically appear with a flick of a wand with zero development costs? Why shouldn’t people get paid for their work?

Open Source didn’t just magically appear either. Many hours of hard work. Many apps on GNU license are kept up to date by an army of unpaid enthusiasts.

If they get even a slightest whiff that “it’s gone commercial” you watch that support dry up faster than a keg of Special Brew at an AA meeting.

Next time you're in Tesco why don't you walk out with your open source loaf of bread, bottle of wine and side of beef. Everything should be free shouldn't it?

[cica]

Sometimes I don’t get the anti-capitalist anti-commercial sentiments on here.

Tell me what’s wrong with a company like MS, Oracle, Siebel, etc, whoever basically! from developing s/w and then getting paid for it?

Did the s/w just magically appear with a flick of a wand with zero development costs? Why shouldn’t people get paid for their work?

Open Source didn’t just magically appear either. Many hours of hard work. Many apps on GNU license are kept up to date by an army of unpaid enthusiasts.

If they get even a slightest whiff that “it’s gone commercial” you watch that support dry up faster than a keg of Special Brew at an AA meeting.

Next time you're in Tesco why don't you walk out with your open source loaf of bread, bottle of wine and side of beef. Everything should be free shouldn't it?

Not that simple. Open Source projects already have piles of cash put in them by corporations. Lots of unpaid but lots of paid on many projects. Sun put a lot into OpenOffice I believe.

No one is saying that people shouldn't get paid.

A decade ago having access to a piece of office software would naturally have been expensive but it makes sense that word processing and spreadsheets become so widespread their costs plummet.

It's not anti-capitalist either. It's simply saying that open source is a lot more appropriate than closed source. I do think it would be possible to linux+openoffice although I'm well aware of the pitfalls.

[CasualBear]

Why, if you're only running SAGE on it?

Not sure if its a PEBKAK or just the abomination that is Vista; life's too short for me to care.

Apparently, being incompetent with computers is perfectly fine if your over 40.

[Bloo Loo]

I have about 15 desktops at a startup. 14 macs and one PC (for SAGE). Outsourced the support, and the Macs have had not one incident while the PC has cost many hundreds of pounds in support.

IMO open office never flies because: if a user sees a problem with open office, that is your fault for making them use open office. On the other hand, a problem with MS office is just the way the world works and they will not complain. So my company waves through thousands of pounds in office licenses every few years just so people can attach a word document to an email occasionally.

Don't even get me started on exchange servers, though.

sounds like you need to resource your outsource.

[ralphmalph]

Sometimes I don’t get the anti-capitalist anti-commercial sentiments on here.

Tell me what’s wrong with a company like MS, Oracle, Siebel, etc, whoever basically! from developing s/w and then getting paid for it?

Did the s/w just magically appear with a flick of a wand with zero development costs? Why shouldn’t people get paid for their work?

Open Source didn’t just magically appear either. Many hours of hard work. Many apps on GNU license are kept up to date by an army of unpaid enthusiasts.

If they get even a slightest whiff that “it’s gone commercial” you watch that support dry up faster than a keg of Special Brew at an AA meeting.

Next time you're in Tesco why don't you walk out with your open source loaf of bread, bottle of wine and side of beef. Everything should be free shouldn't it?

The problem is that MS forged themselves a monopoly. Far back in time there was dos and you could chose word processors, spreadsheets, etc from various suppliers which was fair enough. Then MS told all the word processor, spreadsheet developers that OS2 was the future and make software for that. Behind their backs MS was making windows and a full suite of software for it. When Windows released the only company that had software and knew all the hidden API's to make the good stuff, was MS. MS went from nowhere in application software to no1 basically overnight. Then Outlook integrated into exchange and the mail server business was reduced to one supplier, then the server databases came, etc, etc, etc. Why 25 years on are we paying more for commodity desktop OS and basic applications, when I thought the whole point of technological progress was to do more for less?

Open source in a commercial environment is free for the basic functionality that is developed in a so "Big Society" way. Why have uni students drinking and shagging when they could be contributing to open source? You pay for the commercial addons like support, implementation or advanced apps.

Opensource had to be free to compete with the monopoly, no other way.

Edited March 30, 2011 by ralphmalph

[thecrashingisles]

The problem is that MS forged themselves a monopoly. Far back in time there was dos and you could chose word processors, spreadsheets, etc from various suppliers which was fair enough. Then MS told all the word processor, spreadsheet developers that OS2 was the future and make software for that. Behind their backs MS was making windows and a full suite of software for it. When Windows released the only company that had software and knew all the hidden API's to make the good stuff, was MS. MS went from nowhere in application software to no1 basically overnight. Then Outlook integrated into exchange and the mail server business was reduced to one supplier, then the server databases came, etc, etc, etc. Why 25 years on are we paying more for commodity desktop OS and basic applications, when I thought the whole point of technological progress was to do more for less?

Open source in a commercial environment is free for the basic functionality that is developed in a so "Big Society" way. Why have uni students drinking and shagging when they could be contributing to open source? You pay for the commercial addons like support, implementation or advanced apps.

Opensource had to be free to compete with the monopoly, no other way.

A completely ahistorical summary, especially given that the first version of Microsoft Windows was released 2 years before OS/2.

[OnionTerror]

The problem is that MS forged themselves a monopoly. Far back in time there was dos and you could chose word processors, spreadsheets, etc from various suppliers which was fair enough. Then MS told all the word processor, spreadsheet developers that OS2 was the future and make software for that. Behind their backs MS was making windows and a full suite of software for it. When Windows released the only company that had software and knew all the hidden API's to make the good stuff, was MS. MS went from nowhere in application software to no1 basically overnight. Then Outlook integrated into exchange and the mail server business was reduced to one supplier, then the server databases came, etc, etc, etc. Why 25 years on are we paying more for commodity desktop OS and basic applications, when I thought the whole point of technological progress was to do more for less?

Open source in a commercial environment is free for the basic functionality that is developed in a so "Big Society" way. Why have uni students drinking and shagging when they could be contributing to open source? You pay for the commercial addons like support, implementation or advanced apps.

Opensource had to be free to compete with the monopoly, no other way.

Is there any other alternative (and as comprehensive) to MS Office, apart from Open Office? Is the likes of WordPerfect still going?

[ralphmalph]

A completely ahistorical summary, especially given that the first version of Microsoft Windows was released 2 years before OS/2.

and it was so bad nobody used it. It was Windows 3 that MS kept secret apart from the hardware manufacturers and the sales pitch was if OS/2 wins then IBM will become dominant in PC sales so Mr Compaq, Mr Olivetti, Mr Nixdorf, Mr Bull that would be bad for your business. Sign on the bottom line now, thans Kerching.

[Snagger]

and it was so bad nobody used it. It was Windows 3 that MS kept secret apart from the hardware manufacturers and the sales pitch was if OS/2 wins then IBM will become dominant in PC sales so Mr Compaq, Mr Olivetti, Mr Nixdorf, Mr Bull that would be bad for your business. Sign on the bottom line now, thans Kerching.

There were always alternatives to MS Office on windows, but If we take your events as fact, then MS took one hell of a gamble, windows 3 could of been as successful as Vista, MS would of gone bust, and we'd now have OS2 domination.

Wordperfect was bought by coral, who I thought went bust, but you can still buy Coral Office suite, $69.99

[jethrotull]

Sometimes I don’t get the anti-capitalist anti-commercial sentiments on here.

Tell me what’s wrong with a company like MS, Oracle, Siebel, etc, whoever basically! from developing s/w and then getting paid for it?

Did the s/w just magically appear with a flick of a wand with zero development costs? Why shouldn’t people get paid for their work?

Open Source didn’t just magically appear either. Many hours of hard work. Many apps on GNU license are kept up to date by an army of unpaid enthusiasts.

If they get even a slightest whiff that “it’s gone commercial” you watch that support dry up faster than a keg of Special Brew at an AA meeting.

Next time you're in Tesco why don't you walk out with your open source loaf of bread, bottle of wine and side of beef. Everything should be free shouldn't it?

The Free Software movement was anti-capitalist, but the Open Source movement is not anti-capitalist. Two different groups, the Open Source one being a lot bigger.

Think of open source more like a free newspaper, the Red Arrows, or the sight of a pretty woman on a train. These are all public goods. The publisher behind the free newspaper is commercial. The pilots get paid. And the woman gets to be unreasonable where dowdier peers don't.

The issue is software vendors have shown to be untrustworthy, especially over time. Community projects have longevity beyond corporations. For a 30 year investment in technology you can't risk CA acquiring the vendor and then milking you dry.