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.
- and on the opposite end of the spectrum -
2. Use whatever software you need to perform your job - just ensure you
are compliant with the licensing from the vendor.
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.
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.
George
-- =
Discover . . . | Free Computer Security Information
<=B7=B7=B7> Secure | http://www.georgetoft.com/security
Networking | =
@
http://georgetoft.com | Lock your box - keep your affairs private!
Austin Godber wrote:
> =
> 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?
> =
> ----
> 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=
t
> goes badly. If you buy from a proprietary software vendor, then you've
> got somebody that you are paying, that you can yell at if things go
> wrong. The decision to use their software won't ever be questioned, and=
> either they'll be made to fix it, or another vendor will be chosen. The=
> decision to pick that vendor will likely never be questioned as long as=
> the manager can show some due diligence in making the decision.
> =
> On the other hand, if they choose an open source product, if there is a=
> bug, there's nobody to pass the buck too. So the manager is taking on
> the burden of responsibility if that software does have bugs in it.
> He'll be perceived as exposing the company to unnecessary risk just to
> save a few bucks.
> =
> This is part of an overall attitude problem in corporate america.
> Managers, generally, suffer more for a mistake than they gain for a
> success. Success is expected, that's doing your job. Failure is
> incompetence. Of course failure caused by an effort to get the company
> ahead of the game is still failure, so why take the risk. Hire
> contractors, and pay for software vendors because if there is a mistake=
> you just dump the blame onto them, cut ties, and your job is secure.
> ----
> =
> Austin
> =
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)