[TriLUG] Linux is a monopoly

[Mike Mueller]

On Wednesday 01 October 2003 16:53, Christopher L Merrill wrote:
> Michael Thompson wrote:
> > http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_09302003b
> >
> > I'm sending them my thoughts right now...
>
> Despite some of the FUD statements, I don't disagree with
>
> the article...particularly this line:
> > The Freeware Initiative will require that all IT expenditures in 2004
> > and 2005 be made on an open-source/Linux format.
>
> Just becase the software is open-source does not make it good.  The TCO is
> an important and complex determination.  In many cases, commercial software
> is cheaper than 'free' software, when TCO is figured in.

A few points in response:

Beware the TCO calculations.  Many assumptions and timeframes lurk therein.  
TCO .NE. ROI.  The cost could be higher but the return on investment might be 
higher too.  TCO and ROI say what you want them to say.

Why would the group be so unwilling to let a government body in the US even 
_try_ the proposal before getting worked up.  Governments around the world 
are have a go using OSS but none here.  Why?

Government is responsible for funding the development of the Internet and its 
protocols.  This might have been called a waste of time by some in the early 
days.  I'm sure Novell and IBM had plenty of TCO studies that showed IP to be 
a poor choice.  Perhaps having MA go ahead with their experiment will create 
opportunities for open source software to get better.

OSS is not necessarily free (as in beer).  I sell software that's open and 
not free as in beer. Providing source is my way of telling clients that if I 
get hit by a bus, your investment in my software losses less value.  It also 
guarantees that they are not locked in to my way of doing things.  
-- 
Mike Mueller
324881 (08/20/2003)
Make clockwise circles with your right foot. 
Now use your right hand to draw the number "6" in the air.