| |||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||
Linux abused to fill own pocketsLinux abused to fill own pocketsPosted Oct 29, 2004 16:53 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)In reply to: Linux abused to fill own pockets by stock Parent article: Not So Fast, Linux (Business Week)
Why do you assume it's sleaze? While I'd prefer to have Paris switch to Linux, there is a transition cost, and if the mayor can negotiate a huge discount from Microsoft he has saved the taxpayers a lot of money, so you are wrong to assume corruption without evidence. Such claims will not help our cause.
(Log in to post comments)
Linux abused to fill own pockets Posted Oct 29, 2004 17:23 UTC (Fri) by stock (subscriber, #5849) [Link] Well read again :" AN UNDISCLOSED DISCOUNT " cheers, Robert
Linux abused to fill own pockets Posted Oct 29, 2004 20:23 UTC (Fri) by ballombe (subscriber, #9523) [Link] Well, read again:"Newham"
Linux abused to fill own pockets Posted Nov 2, 2004 8:10 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link] And don't forget ...
If I've got it right, all this stuff about "MS saving money" is true for certain values of true.
If you pay for the study, apparently they compared the current MS setup against the proposed MS setup (with nary a *mention* of Open Source), and came to the conclusion - surprise surprise - that upgrading the MS solution would be cheaper than staying where they were.
So no, they did *NOT* conclude that "MS is cheaper than Open Source". They just spin it that way to fool the watchers...
Cheers,
Linux abused to fill own pockets Posted Oct 29, 2004 20:42 UTC (Fri) by hazelsct (subscriber, #3659) [Link] This is an important point. Public agencies are accountable to the public, and if they can be convinced to withold information about pricing, this both gives the appearance of impropriety and opens the door to corruption.
It is thus perfectly appropriate to use strong language to expose the hypocrisy here. As any accountant will tell you, the burden of proof of innocence is and must be on those who are spending the money -- let alone their citizens' money -- hence if done behind closed doors, it is not unjust to assume the worst.
What's more, tactically, it will serve our interests well to pry open these doors of secrecy and force Microsoft to offer the same discounts to governments worldwide. But that should be a by-product rather than the reason for doing this, which is to hold public servants accountable for their decisions.
|
|||||||||||