[AktiviX-discuss] Ufi-learndirect: what should I say?

[Alan Dawson]

Quoting chip <chiapas at riseup.net>:

> hi
> 
> Dan said:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Thus - I'm looking for some suggestions. If I want to 'lobby' her - to
> > convince her of how huge amounts of government money, via learndirect,
> > should be better spent if one considers oneself to be socialist, or
> > vaguely progressive... what should I say?
> 
> you could point her towards a recent Government study into the use of Open
> Source Software in Education published today on the BECTA website at:
> 
> http://www.becta.org.uk/corporate/press_out.cfm?id=4681
> 

We were recently discussing this report at my day job where it has some
relevance...  Below are the  comments one of colleagues made. 

> Sent: 06 June 2005 16:45
> To: Dawson, Alan
> Subject: OSS in Schools Report
>
>
> Comments:
>
> Appendix 3 is fatally flawed!  One of the aims of the study
> was to "compare the TCO of using OSS... against that of
> non-OSS solutions".  However, the "Annual TCO per PC" costs
> in the table in Appendix 3 suggest that there is a saving to
> be made in "Consumables" simply by using OSS!  Impossible!!  
> This anomaly must, therefore, cast doubt on whether any of
> the other figures are truly comparable.  For example, are
> BECTA really suggesting that schools saved money on hardware
> simply by using OSS?  Similarly, I would have expected to see
> a significant cost saving on software between schools that
> use OSS and those that don't, but on this evidence, only
> relatively small cost savings are attainable!
>
> The report completely ignores the fact that "support costs"
> account for >60% of TCO in either scenario.  It seems to me,
> therefore, that schools stand to gain far more by trying to
> find ways of reducing their ICT support costs rather than
> their software licencing costs!
>
> I liked the fact that the study considered the use of OSS in
> different areas within ICT infrastructures, i.e. on servers,
> on PCs in the Classroom, and on PCs in the Admin Office, but
> I was disappointed that having established that there were
> good reasons for using OSS on servers, it didn't go on to
> spell out exactly what these servers were being used for and
> what specific operating system and application software had
> been used.  Similarly, I was surprised that the report seemed
> to conclude that the range of OSS application software for
> use in Classrooms was comparable with that for Windows.  No
> chance!  Mind you, judging by the list of "OSS packages
> available" (Appendix 2), e.g. IPTABLES, NMAP, FCRON, GREP,
> VI(!), I doubt very much whether the author is actually
> familiar with any of this software and/or has spent any time
> in a classroom!
>
> In summary: I think reports like this are dangerous.  At
> best, they serve no useful purpose, lacking the depth and
> credibility required to enable managers to make informed
> investment decisions.  At worse, however, they can seriously
> mislead people which, in this particular case, would only end
> up damaging the OSS cause - perhaps irreparably!
>
> Just my 2p.
>
> Thanks, Mark.

I must say i agreed with much of this.

AED
-- 
"If you make decisions about software -- or anything -- based solely on
short-term cost and benefit, someone with a longer view can easily
manoeuver you into a trap from which it is hard to escape."