I have been following this discussion every since it was first brought
up a week or so ago and I
have seen some pretty good comments about this "letter". This latest
reply asks many of the
questions I to would have asked.
Having been in the IT field for the last 15 years I have seen why many
company's and government
bodies use windows on they're desktop (assuming for a minute we are
talking desktops), it is simply
because people by and large are not computer literate and a great number
of network admins are
not Linux savvy, it does not mean they are not bright people it simply
means they have not had the
experience with Linux that they have had with MS products.
I have also seen many instances where the direction a company takes in
software decisions is to a
great extent predicated on the experience and experiences of the IT
department. My suggestion would
be to two fold, educate the network admins on the advantages of using
Linux servers for starters, and
find a way to demonstrate a user desktop that can provide users with the
ability to do their daily work.
If you really want to make a difference with the local government's ask
them to stop doing business
with companies that outsource their needs offshore.
It's unfortunate that I live and work in a windows world and as I
developer I see how superior many
of the tools are for windows. That does not prevent me from coming home
and doing much of my
work on a Linux box but until there is a comprehensive IDE like Visual
Studio .net for Linux I'll have to
have an MS box. I know some of you will suggest Mono, and yes I have it
and use it to some degree
but it is not the equal of VS.Net...yet, hopefully soon. Ok so that is
my example of why I need to have
an MS box, I'm sure that if you were to ask some of the IT people in
local government one of their
primary concerns would be the proprietary software they use everyday,
they would probably mention
the simplicity that windows offers to people that expect their computers
to work when ever they sit
down in front of it. With a lot of end users all they know is the
application/s they use at work and they
don't care about anything else, they sit down it works, I'm happy
therefore their local Network Admin
is happy to. Converting the Network Admins to Linux will in the long run
be far more effective then
sending letters to government officials who probably won't care enough
to bother with sending a
response.
Later
On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 17:31, Derek Neighbors wrote:
> I don't know how to respond to this other than to be truthful...
>
> On Sat, 2004-06-19 at 15:23, Michael Havens wrote:
>
> > How does this one look?
> > +++++++++++
> > -> Editor
> > <- Concerned citizens
> >
> > It has come to our attention that state and city governments of this state are
> > not acting in the best interest  of it's citizens.
>
> How are they not acting in the best interest of their citizens? This
> is a severe accusation and yet you make a general comment with
> concrete fact to support it. Many governments buy into the philosophy
> that Microsoft feeds them that states standardization (read all
> Microsoft) is actually MORE cost effective. So they actually think
> they ARE acting in the best interest of their constituency. You need
> to explain WHAT they are doing that is wrong.
>
>
> > These  organizations claim
> > that they have no money yet they continue to  give  hundreds of thousands of
> > dollars (if not then millions) to software manufactures.
>
> Wow, I hope this is not how you expect to win friends and influence
> people. Basically you are calling them liars. As you state the
> "claim" to have no money yet they "continue to spend". The truth is
> most of them do NOT have excess money. Most of them are spending
> because they don't understand they have a CHOICE. However, calling
> them liars doesn't help your cause.
>
>
> > They continue to
> > do  this by leasing licenses for the operating systems (OS) and software
> > produced by these companies
>
> Technically I believe they own the licenses. They just do a leased
> service contract for upgrades... Enterprise Agreement reads very
> strange. It is part lease part ownership.
>
>
> > even though there are viable alternatives to
> > their software and operating systems which are part of a movement known as
> > being 'open source'.
>
> There are not viable EQUIVALENTS in all cases. Making statements like
> this makes your argument significantly weaker.
>
>
> > This movement is one in which the source code (inner
> > workings of the program) is available for everyone to inspect and to improve
> > upon. While some say this leads to less secure programs, that is not
> > true.
>
> It is not universal that it leads to more secure programs either.
> Going down this route is generally fruitless as a primary argument.
>
>
> > Â The individuals who write computer virii are are usually young and
> > inexperienced individuals who think they are smarter than they really are
> > (this is why they ALWAYS get caught).
>
> They do not always get caught and using character attacks (even on the
> "bad" guys) doesn't help your argument.
>
>
> > And while they are looking at the code
> > with malicious overtones the wiser, more experienced generations are
> > inspecting the same code fixing any security flaws they might find.
>
> I hope you are not inferring that young people are not capable of
> coding effectively.
>
>
> > Because the code is open for all to see it is also open for all to compile
> > (make operational) in whatever computing environment they wish. This means
> > that it is free to use as your software. This all boils down to that for
> > practically nothing you can have an operating system that that runs many
> > top-notch programs that many believe are superior to operating systems you
> > must pay for with the same funtionality.
>
> Do not make the primary argument "no cost" it WILL bite you in the end.
>
> > I now would finish with a listing of government agencies that have chosen to   Â
> > go with open source software to reduce costs, increase security, and to
> > improve performance:
>
>
> This is the first part that actually contains facts with support. I
> think you should drop all the emotional argument piece and just write
> the person you want to influence with this list of governments
> (including supporting documentation). At the top of the message
> simply put....
>
> "I have noticed recently that a lot of government agencies are
> investigating the use of free software in order to reduce costs,
> increase stablity/security and reduce vendor lockin. I was wondering
> if <insert government agency you are writing to here> has investigated
> such software? It looks like it might be something that is a good use
> of our tax dollars in the long run. I am including a list of similar
> government agencies that have started using such software. Perhaps
> you could contact them and see if you could get similar
> results/benefits."
>
> <insert your list here>
>
> -Derek
(text/plain)