D
dennis@home
Guest
Re: OLPC Project is Falling Apart...As Predicted.....
"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-2702C0.13425722032008@news.supernews.com...
> In article <A36614CD-A8E5-45BA-A67D-813FF0BAA77B@microsoft.com>,
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> >>> but the CIO where I work just gave the order they want 25 volunters
>> >>> to
>> >>> start using OpenOffice. It is been evaluated for an open rollout
>> >>> corporate wide. If it happens, 12000 Office liceses hit the bucket.
>> >>
>> >> Waste of cash already spent.. anyone done a proper cost-benefit
>> >> analysis?
>> >
>> > I don't know the numbers, specifically what MS per seat cost, but know
>> > that amount times 12,000 has people motivated.
>>
>> Why when its already spent? They aren't saving anything, at best they
>> are increasing costs. Is there nobody with any sense running the
>> project?
>
> Doesn't it depend on the license terms? If they paid a one-time fee for
> 12000 seats, good forever, and good for all future versions, than yeah,
> they save no money dropping Office for OpenOffice.
>
> However, if the licenses require periodic renewal, or if they need to
> buy new licenses to cover new versions, than switching to a different
> program with lower licensing cost will save them money.
>
> The correct way to do such a switch is indeed the way it was described
> above. A small number of people doing an initial test, and then you
> roll it out everywhere (assuming the test worked!), doing this while
> your current licenses are still valid, so that if something goes wrong,
> you can fall back to Office. You want to be off of Office and fully
> onto the alternative *before* your current licenses run out.
That isn't the way you make the decision though.. that is just a technology
trial.
And you don't ask for volunteers either, you choose staff based on your
staff profiles, its a waste of time getting 25 people that already use OO to
trial it, you need to check out a cross section including people who don't
have computers at home.
Like I said who is in charge, or is it just make believe?
"Tim Smith" <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> wrote in message
news:reply_in_group-2702C0.13425722032008@news.supernews.com...
> In article <A36614CD-A8E5-45BA-A67D-813FF0BAA77B@microsoft.com>,
> "dennis@home" <dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:
>> >>> but the CIO where I work just gave the order they want 25 volunters
>> >>> to
>> >>> start using OpenOffice. It is been evaluated for an open rollout
>> >>> corporate wide. If it happens, 12000 Office liceses hit the bucket.
>> >>
>> >> Waste of cash already spent.. anyone done a proper cost-benefit
>> >> analysis?
>> >
>> > I don't know the numbers, specifically what MS per seat cost, but know
>> > that amount times 12,000 has people motivated.
>>
>> Why when its already spent? They aren't saving anything, at best they
>> are increasing costs. Is there nobody with any sense running the
>> project?
>
> Doesn't it depend on the license terms? If they paid a one-time fee for
> 12000 seats, good forever, and good for all future versions, than yeah,
> they save no money dropping Office for OpenOffice.
>
> However, if the licenses require periodic renewal, or if they need to
> buy new licenses to cover new versions, than switching to a different
> program with lower licensing cost will save them money.
>
> The correct way to do such a switch is indeed the way it was described
> above. A small number of people doing an initial test, and then you
> roll it out everywhere (assuming the test worked!), doing this while
> your current licenses are still valid, so that if something goes wrong,
> you can fall back to Office. You want to be off of Office and fully
> onto the alternative *before* your current licenses run out.
That isn't the way you make the decision though.. that is just a technology
trial.
And you don't ask for volunteers either, you choose staff based on your
staff profiles, its a waste of time getting 25 people that already use OO to
trial it, you need to check out a cross section including people who don't
have computers at home.
Like I said who is in charge, or is it just make believe?