Return to the Press page

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 16, 2013

PostgreSQL 9.3 beta: Federated databases and more

LWN.net Weekly Edition for May 9, 2013

(Nearly) full tickless operation in 3.10

Weekly edition	Kernel	Security	Distributions	Contact Us	Search
Archives	Calendar	Subscribe	Write for LWN	LWN.net FAQ	Sponsors

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

[Posted September 9, 2004 by cook]

The Register uncovers the funding of a supposedly independent report used in a decision to use Microsoft software by the London borough of Newham. "According to Microsoft's press release of last month, "Newham's decision to partner with Microsoft follows an extensive platform evaluation at the Borough, in which the merits of, and overall value offered by Microsoft's software were rigorously assessed by Capgemini. Capgemini were selected to conduct the evaluation by Newham, and ran the evaluations as an independent third party. Fact One: None of this is untrue, as such, but a study by Capgemini, funded by Microsoft, was Microsoft's offer during pricing negotiations with Newham last autumn. Note that Cap Gemini's brief was to assess value offered by Microsoft software, and that it ran its evaluation as an independent third party. The Beast chooses its words carefully here.""

(Log in to post comments)

Posted Sep 9, 2004 23:52 UTC (Thu) by huffd (guest, #10382) [Link]

Mr. Steel has a several page rant he'll be happy to send you that discusses the abuses he's endured since the decision was made and is very irate about the disclosure of certain documents with regards to the decision making process.

Some inferences that can be made from this might be:
1.)He's made a politically correct decision and he's doing what he's paid for, but upset because of all the flack he's getting.
2.)He wasn't told ahead of time that this was so politically sensitive and should be getting paid more.
3.)He's not the right man for the job.

Any way it pans out you can be sure Microsoft got what theypaid for.

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

Posted Sep 10, 2004 1:21 UTC (Fri) by ccchips (guest, #3222) [Link]

Where I work, the second dog broght in a third dog to assess how to use $5.6 million of the org's money revamping the IT operations back in 1994. He had a little "UNIX vs. NT" debate, after which he put up a comparison table showing how much money we would save if we went NT.

2 years and $5.6 million later, they:

Didn't have any new systems in place
Fired or discouraged most of their veteran IT people
Dumped their webmaster because he refused to use only FrontPage to do everything
Had Microsoft everywhere
Hired replacement infrastructure people who would hear nothing about anything else.

I always wondered what money changed hands that I will never know about.

There seem to be some negotiations going on between Microsoft and free-software developers over some mail protocol (that may not even work.)

Don't trust Microsoft. They're liable to cheat you out of all the work you've been giving away to share.

Too bad about Microsft; they produce some pretty good software.

...but then again, I personally know the best auto mechanic in my state. or, I should say, he was in my state, until they put him away for violent crime.

Just goes to show you....

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

Posted Sep 11, 2004 22:22 UTC (Sat) by gvy (guest, #11981) [Link]

> Just goes to show you....

? (I'm not native English speaker so could not grok the "was" context)

PS: thanks for yet another (still the same) scenario snip to show people.

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

Posted Sep 10, 2004 1:55 UTC (Fri) by clugstj (subscriber, #4020) [Link]

Just another day at the office for our favorite monopoly. This stuff just gets funnier and funnier.

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

Posted Sep 10, 2004 7:22 UTC (Fri) by dmantione (guest, #4640) [Link]

The more of these studies they do, the less seriously there word is going to be
taken...

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

Posted Sep 10, 2004 12:12 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Other local authorities in the UK look to Newham for technology leadership.

Maybe it's time for a public display and investigation of where local authorities such as in Newham spend their (well, your) money. With all the noise about the apparent "savings", one might almost forget that Newham is in for a heck of a lot of money down the drain.

Anyway, isn't it great to be paid for saying it's great?

Heh. It's always a pleasure to read The Register, and thanks for a terrific job!

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

Posted Sep 10, 2004 12:34 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

See this report (PDF) by the CSIS thinktank for an overview of Open Source adoptation by governments wordlwide. Note that it is not complete, there are many more proposals and actual deployments that have probably escaped the attention.

Newham is listed in the report with the status "failed".

CSIS Report

Posted Sep 10, 2004 15:07 UTC (Fri) by Cinabrium (guest, #19569) [Link]

CSIS Report contains several inaccuracies. I have detected six for my country (Argentina) alone. Moreover, it's interesting to see that almost ten percent of the sources quoted in the report are Microsoft's communications.

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

Posted Sep 11, 2004 12:38 UTC (Sat) by dizzl (guest, #5521) [Link]

Two more nuanced articles can be found here:
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=132960
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=132962

'Independent' report used MS-sourced data to trash OSS (Register)

Posted Sep 13, 2004 8:13 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Well, both articles are reiterations of what has been said before: there is really, really nothing fishy about the Newham/Microsoft deal. The thing is: we expect authorities to spend our money well, we expect authorities to be as open as possible about the decision-making process, and we expect them to take us seriously when we have questions about irregularities. Keeping these simple principles in mind, I would consider Mr Steel's "rebuttal" a slap in the face.

Mind that this has nothing to do with the actual outcome of the process, it is the process itself that (according to the Register) is flawed.

(Also note that the FUD has already started: "The Newham trail shows that the cost of ownership story is not clear," said Barnett [research director at Ovum]. "It is not true that Linux will always give significant total cost of ownership savings. [...]". Both statements are true, but to suggest a relation between them is FUD. Ovum appears to be another "sure we can comment on <insert favourite item> so it appears that <insert favourite conclusion>" kind of consultancy company.)

Having carefully read El Reg's careful reading...

Posted Sep 11, 2004 12:45 UTC (Sat) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

...I'm kind of amazed that nobody in the jurisdiction of Newham has had the people involved thrown in legal boiling oil for making or permitting false and misleading statements.

Perhaps I don't know enough about pommy shire-level politics (hello from Western Australia), but I'm having trouble seeing how they can not have breached any gummint or corporate laws about telling the truth, to say nothing about fiduciary duty of care.

The short story

Posted Sep 11, 2004 13:05 UTC (Sat) by leonbrooks (guest, #1494) [Link]

Also, some (not all) key points in case you're rushed and can't be bothered reading three more pages of El Reg:

Microsoft's own numbers when run through a flawed (in their favour, IRL FOSS would do even better) costing model concluded that FOSS would save Newham money, and the study says that in so many words;
Microsoft “fixed” this by making Newham a special case demo site, AKA Judas Goat, with special pricing — so even if Newham save money (doubtful, IRL) other shires will lose money by sticking with or switching to Microsoft;
The CapGemini study included Microsoft's own studies and data with a disclaimer, but Newham seem to have effectively ignored the disclaimer.

One further point

Posted Sep 12, 2004 13:21 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

I think this is also important: Microsoft compares a Windows-only situation to a Windows-only situation, and surprisingly Windows-only came out winning! In this case it's Win98 vs. XP, upgrading to Outlook 2003, etc. The only plausible reason given for the savings is the massive discounts that Microsoft was willing to give Newham, under the guise of a "solution reference programme".