[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 01:15:32AM +0100, Julian Hall wrote:
> On 25/05/2010 20:15, tom wrote:
> I asked my (Conservative) MP here in S Wales what the coalition
> government's view is on FLOSS, here's his reply:
>
> 'The government are positive about FLOSS because it creates greater
> diversity and competition. I am not sure about plans to use in government
> but would expect that when IT services contracts come to be renewed that
> they will consider the best option re cost, efficiency and security.'
>
As always the devil is in the details: in this case how "cost",
"efficiency" and "security" are defined.
For example lets suppose you have a Microsoft / Proprietary shop of Police,
Local Government, Education. Bespoke macros all talking to each other and a
support staff who understand the system. To convert to FLOSS:
In year 1,
- there are significant costs to convert systems, train users
- you will need to run both systems because there is no FLOSS
equivalent of some proprietary software. Increasing overheads
- support staff will be more expensive because there is less
competition
Year 2:
- Conversion costs will be down
- Support staff will still be more expensive
- Support for dual systems will be more expensive
- The proprietary software may well cost more
Year 3
- Existing staff use FLOSS, support costs are down also with
increasing competition from providers
- Some staff will use FLOSS to improve service
- Demands for "tweaking" software will rise: demands for programmers
will rise (hence costs)
- Proprietary software still costs
Year 4: Election time: has FLOSS saved money by this point? The answer
given the above scenario is no.
Year 5 onwards:
- Service to clients improves
- Supports costs drop
- No replacement cost for existing software
- Reuse of software from other councils
etc etc
Year 8: Election. Has FLOSS improved costs, efficiency and security? Again
in the scenario as written: of course and of course the improvements
increase over time: increasing the value of the investment.
If you are looking short term, FLOSS will never work: the sunk costs are
too high. But of course the key issue is future costs and future benefits.
(Well to be specific the expected likelihoods of future cash flows
discounted to net present value with lots of focus on what assumptions are
embedded in the model).
Hence the Dutch solution: if a public body wants to use software then it
has to be open source. If you want to use proprietary software then in
addition to all local signoffs you need Central Government approval
--
Henry
Photocopies or faxes of my signature are not binding.
This email has been signed with an electronic signature in accordance with
subsection 7(3) of the Electronic Communications Act 2000.
Digital Key Signature: GPG RSA 0xFB447AA1
Wed May 26 08:10:42 BST 2010
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html