OSS In the Office

> I have two opposing tales to tell from two different companies with very
> large employee bases.
> 1.  OpenSource and Shareware are specifically prohibited as there is
> nobody to sue if a failure disrupts productivity or damages data.  Also,
> by using OSS instead of contractually ($$$) supported software means
> there is no liability on the part of the OSS provider for recovering
> damages.
>=20
> - and on the opposite end of the spectrum -
>=20
> 2.  Use whatever software you need to perform your job - just ensure you
> are compliant with the licensing from the vendor.
>=20
> I'm currently at company #2, and have a properly licensed installation
> of Cygwin on my XP desktop.  One of my coworkers uses Linux and runs
> VMWare (properly licensed) for the one Windows app he needs.
>=20
> Company #1 was very enlightening as this mandate came from Computer
> Security, part of Technology Risk Management, Legal Department.  Funny
> thing was the sysadmins used sudo (OSS) on their AIX boxes for security
> reasons.
>=20
> George
> --=20
> Discover . . .         | Free Computer Security Information
>         <=B7=B7=B7> Secure   | http://www.georgetoft.com/security
>          Networking    |=20
> @http://georgetoft.com | Lock your box - keep your affairs private!
>=20
>=20
> Austin Godber wrote:
> >=20
> > Here is a snip from a slashdot thread today (the one about MS Office).
> > I am wondering if this is a good summary of business attitudes, and if
> > so, how should opensource deal with it?
> >=20
> > ----
> >   The reason that they [businesses] won't touch OSS is because they
> > perceive risk to their careers in going with it. It's not that OSS is
> > more or less buggy, it's a matter of them having to take the blame if i=