D&C GLug - Home Page

[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]

Re: [LUG] Adrian Sanders's Question.... Francis Maude's reply

 

On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 7:23 AM, Henry Bremridge
<henry.bremridge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2010 at 08:53:02PM +0100, Rob Beard wrote:
>>
>> Yep, I think really it could possibly do with something more
>> concrete, such as set procedures.
>>
>
> TCO etc are all very subjective issues (for example what is the correct
> discount rate to be used for valuing future costs).
>
> IMHO what is therefore important is that the public sector should be required to 
> justify
> why Floss is NOT used. (I would prefer to have the Public Sector publish
> the successful contract details and the associated business cases).

I agree. If they have guidelines that say procure FLOSS then they
should be required to justify when and why they don't.

> I am also sure that no matter what is decided proprietary software is too
> important not to be used in some cases, and while Division of Labour is a
> well known economic principle, experience seems to illustrate that Floss
> can save money and time:
>
>        http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10278308-16.html
>        Lest you think this move to open source is inspired by a cloud of cannabis
>        smoke, the report also mentions significant improvements in
>        interoperability (31 percent), cost reduction (8 percent), and quality
>        improvements in the municipal governments (22 percent).
>
>        The guardian article on Council Costs
>       
>  http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2010/aug/26/local-government-spending-open-standards-saving
>        is also illustrative.
>
> Conversely as Adrian pointed out there is Newham
> http://www.microsoft.com/casestudies/Microsoft-Services/Newham-University-Hospital-NHS-Trust-and-NHS-Newham/NHS-Trust-Support-Agreement-Boosts-IT-Skills-Without-Increasing-Overheads/4000007615
>
>
>
> --
> 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
> Tue Sep 28 07:20:01 BST 2010
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iJwEAQECAAYFAkyhicoACgkQrysVpvtEeqFdRQP/fsL23cud2XTe8hTFMzR+F0eA
> eXE00lF7Ggpywp1nOuWSkQUl2f6nOGARsZ7FPaKSHuobm5J3B5lMn79+GnOOuVoc
> wRKsFCuOHFMiVpuEFIgF4sNb0f6vzo9/iYe1vWRZ7lwZwSDJdS9nRg9rBeMxJDb8
> xJdH+r4T8TB9SO8lbYc=
> =2j7g
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> --
> The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
> http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
> FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq
>
>

Roly

-- 
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list
FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq