Manage updates with the Download App
October 10, 2007 9:11 AM PDT
Lawmaker blasts U.K. government on Microsoft policy
- Related Stories
-
Why restraining Microsoft no longer matters
September 21, 2007 -
Gauging Microsoft threat to Europe's Linux users
September 20, 2007 -
British standards body mum on OOXML vote
September 4, 2007 -
Microsoft agitates for open-source patent pacts
May 14, 2007
John Pugh, who is a member of Parliament, or MP, for Southport and a member of the Public Accounts Committee, was speaking in an adjournment debate on Tuesday that he had called. The aim of the debate, he said, was to explore the alternatives to using Microsoft software, including open source.
The current U.K. government strategy has left too much in the hands of Microsoft, Pugh argued, and he accused the company of "predatory pricing and stultifying competition."
He said that the U.K. government's policy "is, in part, in breach of European Union regulations" on competition.
The government's strategy hits the poorest hardest, Pugh said. "Why should people on benefits have to use Vista when it costs hundreds of pounds and there are cheaper open-source solutions available?" he asked. "Why should people have to use Vista rather than Apple, for that matter?"
Furthermore, the U.K. government has ceded control to Microsoft, Pugh said, pointing to Connecting for Health, a government health program as an example. "I am happy for Connecting for Health to go to a company like Microsoft," he said. "I am less happy when the details are subject to a confidentiality agreement."
Speaking for the U.K. government, Angela Eagle, MP for Wallasey, said that the government's strategy on IT was not governed by a desire to choose any particular vendor, but by the "need to get value and the best possible deal."
Eagle said that there were many benefits of open-source software but, in the end, it was the price to the taxpayer that mattered. "I agree that open-source platforms can help open competition and that we want a free marketplace," she said. "We are using open source in many areas, and we do realize there are benefits."
But while open source can appear to be cheap, there are extra costs in training and support that mean it may not always be the cheapest solution, Eagle said.
Pugh is a frequent critic of the U.K. government's IT strategy. In November 2006, Pugh called for a "level playing-field in software," arguing that the government was favoring Microsoft above other companies.
Colin Barker of ZDNet UK reported from London.
See more CNET content tagged:
government, U.K., open source, information technology, health
25 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
almost always the biggest one used in persuading someone not
to consider an alternative to an MS product, citing it as the de
facto standard.
It also assumes that absolutely everyone on the planet has the
same level of familiarity with Windows and Office and will
require no additional training on those to be productive.
Not so. Training usually ranks low on the totem pole in any
organization. It usually is referred to in disparaging fashion and
is considered a huge pain?primarily because it's often
implemented poorly.
Training is the easiest thing in the world to do. But wait, you
argue, no one wants to do it and they never really take anything
away from it.
Wrong. If you have people who a) don't want to learn, or b) are
incapable of learning (sometimes referred to as MBAs or
supervisors) then you have hired incorrectly.
For the most part, the average employee WANTS to learn new
and different things, especially if they perceive it will make them
more informed and productive.
Just Hurry On Up With Those International Organisation for Standards (ISO) "Sheffield Class" Office Suite Standards - Microsoft. Wow!
away with it.
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.maxmon.com/1830ad.htm" target="_newWindow">http://www.maxmon.com/1830ad.htm</a>
"As was previously noted, the first device that might be considered to be a computer in the modern sense of the word was conceived by the eccentric British mathematician and inventor Charles Babbage."
"Working with Babbage was Augusta Ada Lovelace, the daughter of the English poet Lord Byron. Ada, who was a splendid mathematician and one of the few people who fully understood Babbage's vision, created a program for the Analytical Engine."
While the Analytical Engine did not work, it laid the foundation for others to copy and reproduce the results of what could be the start of the modern computer age. Ada developed the binary system and punch cards, but Charles kept tinkering with the Engine.
All of this before IBM was even founded, but yes IBM stood on the shoulders of giants and became a giant later. After all, they did copy Babbage's and Lovelace's work and called it their own. That sounds so much like another company that starts with an M and ends in a icrosoft.
Nevermind that OS/2 Presentation Manager copied the Macintosh look and feel for its GUI. Just business as usual for IBM. NIH! Not Invented Here! But they'll gladly take credit for it.
Nevermind that IBM buried the Sinclair, BBC Acorn, and other systems that the UK made later, which IBM stole from to create their IBM PC, because IBM didn't know how to make Microcomputers like the UK companies did? IBM also stole from Commodore, Atari, Radio Shack, and the entire CP/M line of systems that came from the USA before the PC was even designed. IBM buried them all.
But they don't. Why - because the value proposition remains immensely skewed, and fairly at that, toward MSoft and its line of products/services. Millions of free will choices get made each day which reinforce this fact.
Build a better "mousetrap", and the masses will come.