Have you ever seen a .DOC document with an embedded movie in it or the other bloatware hyper-pointless features that MS carp about being poorly(or not)supported in ODF? Jeez, every doc format in the world from .PDF to .DOC seems to want to muscle into web/multimedia territory. It's this same pointless and not-requested obsession that has bloated Acrobat from a usable application to a creaking zeppelin of a program.

Horses for courses...

"extensive letter" I'd say 15 pages....come on like anyone (beside me;>) is going to read that. MS is hoping XML will be the point that keep Office in the lead, but that is not enough, they need to ensure that 100 years from now we can read our doc, *.txt might still be ok by then, but we love our formatting, our bullets, and other needless eyecandy. Kudo's for someone taking a stand! MS listen to your customers - not write a short novel to them, aauugghh!

IBM stands to gain from this. It is already developing Office competitor that is ODF compliant.

http://labnol.blogspot.c...g-microsoft-office.html

FTL:

"Built on top of IBM's Java 2 Enterprise Edition-based Websphere application server stack, Workplace can trace its pedigree to the collaboration technologies found in Lotus Domino/Notes and to Big Blue's portal technologies, typically based on WebSphere."

Er... Java? Notes? Oh, I see...pure crap.

Slow, insecure, and, if they keep to the interface designs they have, clunky as hell.

I'm not saying we wouldn't look at it, I'm just saying we may be chuckling while we do it.

How many systems are we talking here? Is this going to do interesting things to OO.o's market-share?

Gotta love The People's Republic of Massachusettes.

Because they believe in FREEDOM OF CHOICE?

I think you have it backwards.

EDIT: Mind you, I do believe that MASS is the most backwards state in the country however this isn't so bad.

>>Because they believe in FREEDOM OF CHOICE?<<

Huh? Disallowing me to "choose" MS Office and (currently) limiting usage of only four products all based on StarOffice code is "freedom of choice"?

Good is bad. Black is white. It's doubleplus good!

You can't buy MS Office?

I'm sorry, what company can you work for where you can choose what office package you use?

I don't think you understand. The format, OpenDocument, is not disallowing you to choose MS Office, MS Office is disallowing you to choose OpenDocument. The question I ask is WHY?

The only reason I can think of, is because MS is afraid of being called hypicrits for implementing an Open Source programming in their software. This programming is free for any app to implement, but MS is just refusing to. I don't see it any different than Internet Explorer supporting PNG images, why doesn't office support OpenDocument? Who cares if it is "not stable enough" or "mature enough" whatever their words were. People obviously are going to use it and it's MS's mistake not to support it.

this is great! i wsh others would follow suit. this just proves that ms isn't the only option out there...lets keep this up!

The most unbelievable part of all this is M$'s attitude. "How dare you try to save the taxpayer some money and create a more open standard of electronic communication? Thats not what goverments are supposed to do!" Believe me, I'm no fan of Mass. - both its goverment and the majority of its people are far too liberal and arrogant for my liking. Neverthelesss, and regardless of their true motivations, Mass. officials may have struck a telling blow against the 800-pound gorilla that adds untold stress and complication to all our lives.

You guys need to realize OpenDocument is in the public's best interest. Anybody can implement it, I just haven't heard a reason not to from MS, other than it not being stable or something like that - WTF do they care, they don't have to make it the default format. People are asking for support, so support it! It's competition, and MS will just have play or lose.

Think of all those streaming audio plug-ins, g** d*** i hate having to install proprietary real audio player, and proprietary quick time, and WMP... I would much rather install a player if it was for an open format than install 4 different players!

'won't this cause compatibility problems, since the rest of the world uses ms office?'

# these problems will be minor, since anyone is more than free to implement the OpenDocument standard. Users simply have to obtain and install a program that will support this standard, many of these programs are free. OpenOffice.org 1.x does not support this standard, but Version 2.x (currently beta) saves as OpenDocument by default.

I am glad to see this move and MS will eventually have to bite their tongue and give the users what they want! After that, they can support ogg in windows media player!

Won't this cause more problems than it solves?

In what ways? Can you be more specific?

I meant that most people use Office, and if they start switching to some free alternative aren't they going to end up with compatibility problems?

In some cases, yes. Especially if they try to open documents containing embedded Windows forms.

I've experienced no problems switching all my MS docs to OpenOffice. A few odd page-layout things, (similar to what you experience when upgrading old MS Word 6.0/97 to modern MS Word formats) but other than that no problems at all.

MS is trying to manufacture this sort of 'incompatible' propaganda - it's a bit of a non-issue, if you ask me. They'll save more money than they'll lose.

No wonder Massachusetts cant elect a president...good grief, who cares about this.

From their response I believe Microsoft cares a great deal.

yeah, who cares, why doesn't MS just support the OpenDocument and quit b****in

"Microsoft Office 2003 -- by far the most popular office suite used by the majority of businesses and governments -- "

Can you show evidence and source for this? To the best of my knowledge Office 2000 and XP/2002 still vastly outweigh 2003.

Smart move by Mass.

You have to think long term when you plan for stuff like this. It does no harm to Mass. citizens to decide on an open, free, license free format. In the long term this is the best decision possible.

Let's hope Oregon follows suit, since they are pretty much becoming a center for Open source/GPL repository.

That would only work if everyone moves over. I know I will not

I do belive that you are expressing the the spirit of the mandate very well. Customers should have a choice. Under the current situation Microsoft is able to leveage their market lead into lock in. Under the mandate Microsoft will be free to implement the OpernDocument. Thus you can use what ever you please.

Why not? Sure, there are a lot of things Office has now that OO doesn't. Who knows what the future will bring though.

For me, I can get by with OpenOffice today at home.

You don't have to move over, simply ask MS to support it.

Goes to show you how domb Mass. is! Come on, the next version of Microsoft Office is going to have XML based file formats in all the main apps: Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Access and others! Take that Mass!

Shows how much they look

I believe that if you dig into the story a little deeper, you will find that Microsoft has added a number of encumbrances to their XML. If they(MS) would remove those encumbrances Mass would be more than willing to accept their XML as an accepted formate.

They did look, it's much more in depth than supporting XML.

Ya, morans.

(Just kidding. Go Mass! Maybe this will get OpenSource to a "Critical Mass?" )

I've been using StarOffice for years (since 1997) and have built MS compatible documents and spreadsheets in that application. I have also used MicroSoft's and Corel's software packages. I found Open Source more flexible and practical in nearly all areas. Once again, MicroSoft is showing how inflexible and whinney they can be. Their limited thinking and bloated apps eat up more memory than is needed. For instance: "Easter Eggs" concealed in the program code -- who thinks it is cute to have a flight simulator hidden in a spreadsheet app or a listing of all of the product developers in a screensaver, and so on. These "hidden features" add unnessesary code and increase the risk of apps crashing or giving unpredictable results when the right combination of code and cells are used in valid business calculations. So what if MS puts all of its proprietary (wm? files) graphics and sound files in one place. Anyone that knows how to organizer their drives can do that and readily access all of their files with one or two keystrokes or mouse gestures in StarOffice. It is also easier to edit graphics and build web pages in the open source apps. MS has been the stifling power against open source since its inception and it is good that Mass is standing tall against the giant and opting for something that has been around since the early days of freeware. What company wants to fork over several thousand dollars of the profits everytime a new version of an office suite comes out when they can be universally compatible all of the time and get FREE upgrades, paying a minimal fee, if any, for the first licensure. My copy of StarOffice is an old one that I got as freeware many years ago and it is still my main workhorse when all else fails to open a document. Newer versions have PDF plugins to build PDF files from within the application. Can MS boast of this ability? NO! You have to go out and get Adobe Acrobat -- another added expense. MS keeps its code top secret for Office; Open Source companies readily give it away. This allows the user with programming skills to build plugins and improve on already good products. True, you can do that with office, but only if you know Visual Basic, C#, C++ or Java. With open source, you can use any language that will compile: basic, c, c++, tcl, perl, java, pascal, HTML, XML, etc. the list is virtually endless (even though the source is usally a c or basic variant, and NOT necessarily visual or #). MS is just jealous that Open Source is catching on in government and they are afraid that they are losing their foothold in the government sector. Once that sector falls, business is next. How many servers have switched to LINUX for NT? There's open source computing power for you! If IBM is selling servers with LINUX as an option to Windows and HP/Compaq and Dell have followed suit, then I think that the "David" of Open Source has seriously wounded the software Goliath. And that Goliath is grasping at straws to stay alive instead of opening its blackened eyes and seeing that Open Source is a real threat. People do not want congested hard drives and pretty pictures, they want something that works every time and won't crash whenever someone in the room sneezes (95, ME, etc.) We want unbloated apps that run right. For a desktop, KDE and GNOME are excellent alternatives and an easy transition from the Windows GUI AND more flexible. Windows seems to change to a closer variant of the MacOS about a year or two after a new Apple OS arrives. When WordStar was the office suite of choice, MS came out with Works and Works for networks, WordStar dissappeared and all of a sudden Office was here. New versions of WordPerfect came out and MS kept up. Has MS gotten afraid of the new kid on the block to the point that they have to be the schoolyard bully? I only can say: Way to go, Mass.! May others follow suit.

paragraphs/organized thoughts please!

I'll pass on reading this for now.

No he won't, because he use StartOffice for so long and learned habit not to "paragraphs/organized thoughts"

You need to learn proper grammar.

what? I haven't used StarOffice, so I fail to see the humor, unless you are just trying to put it down with any reason you can or can't find.

Tanx for this overview, man!

You speak for me.

Add the history of operating systems.

GREAT COMMENT !

Why is it that you people must always butcher a really good comment?!

Why is it that you people must always butcher a really good comment?!

I wasn't trying to imply the comment was bad, but seriously, if you want your comment to be read, at least make it easier to read by using paragraphs. I've since, read through it a little bit, and agree with what I have read...

I'm just saying, people don't want to read all caps, nor do they want to read for pages without paragraphs, nor text that is so close in color to the background, that makes it hard to read... I'm sure you get the idea.

Nate,
While the article is very well written, I would like to point out that the title is incorrect.

No where in Enterprise Technical Reference Model version 3.5, does it state that MS office will be dropped. I understand that article titles are usually add well after the piece is written by an editor eager to sell their product. The rest of your article is correct, but please correct the title.

For other reading the article, please note that there is no restriction on Mass. Using any Microsoft products as long as that MS product has the ability to save to the OpenDocument format.

Taken directly from the MS web site
>>
Formats that Word can save directly.

.doc The default Word document format.

.dot Word template format. Word applies all formatting and other attributes in the template to any new document that is based on the template.

.htm, .html Web page in HTML (HTML: The standard markup language used for documents on the World Wide Web. HTML uses tags to indicate how Web browsers should display page elements such as text and graphics and how to respond to user actions.) format. Preserves the Word document properties so that HTML documents retain Word-specific features if they are later saved back to the Word document format.
Note You can also save a document in a filtered HTML format that removes the Word-specific HTML encoding (Web Page, Filtered).

.mht, .mhtml Web page in a single file Web page (also known as Web archive) format.

.xml Extensible Markup Language file.

.rtf Rich Text Format; converts the formatting to instructions that other programs, including compatible Microsoft programs, can read and interpret.

.txt Plain text format; contains no text formatting. Converts all section breaks (section break: A mark you insert to show the end of a section. A section break stores the section formatting elements, such as the margins, page orientation, headers and footers, and sequence of page numbers.), page breaks, and new line characters to paragraph marks (paragraph mark: The nonprinting symbol that Microsoft Word inserts when you press ENTER to end a paragraph. The paragraph mark stores the formatting you apply to the paragraph.). Allows you to select the ANSI character set (ANSI character set: An 8-bit character set used by Microsoft Windows that allows you to represent up to 256 characters (0 through 255) by using your keyboard. The ASCII character set is a subset of the ANSI set.) or to use the encoding standard that you choose. Use an encoded format when you share documents with people who use system software in another language.
<<

If Microsoft would be willing to add a filter to allow office to save as OpenDocument there would not be a problem.

The question me must ask ourselves is, “Why Microsoft won't add that filter?”

I see a lot of arguments about how MS’s XML is better than OpenDocument.

Fine, I propose the argument that MS’s XML is better than .txt. If word can save to both .txt and .xml, why not both .xml and .odt(OpenDocument)?

I just wanted to say that I think MA is making a big mistake, not in using a product like OpenOffice, but instead in using the Open Doc format.

The rest of the world does not use Open Doc, they can live in their wonderful world where everyone uses open standards, but the rest of the world uses MS Office. The doc format may be proprietary, but it is a standard in its own sense. OpenOffice supports the Doc format for this specific reason.

They are just creating a major pain for their employees, who will have to now worry about converting between formats depending on who they are sending it to: OpenDoc for MA govt, and MS doc for the rest of the world.

If they were to use OpenOffice with MS Doc, and then slowly migrate to the OpenDoc format, that would make much more sense.

If you will notice Microsoft is moving away from the .doc format to their own XML format. So either way you look at it, if you migrate to OOo or update to MS Office the .doc standard will no longer be the preferred standard.

Now to add another layer of irony, if you update some desktop to MS Office 12, will you have to remember which desktops are 12 and which are older so that you can remember how to save your document in order to transfer it.

I once worked in an office,(100% MS Office) when the IT department got so sick of dealing version problems that all documents were saved as .txt files. MS Office is pretty good when it works, but tough to fix when it doesn't.

"I once worked in an office,(100% MS Office) when the IT department got so sick of dealing version problems that all documents were saved as .txt files."

that department should have stayed with one MS Office version. There's no reason to upgrade to MS Office 2003 if you whole office uses MS Office 2000 and work gets done just as well > specifically if there will be version incompatibilities due to how the IT staff doesn't want to convert ALL systems to the new suite.

i've run MS Office 2003 on low end machines (500Mhz 256MB) just fine, there's no reason for that dept. to not stay consistant with what their company/entity's systems run, I see having different MS Office versions all over the office as poor management of the IT division.

that's not MS's issue, that's a management efficiency issue of the stated dept. in that company.

I will full well admit a ‘management efficiency issue’ I was working for the military at the time;)

The main problem was caused by the need to deal with out side agencies. Some had chosen 95, some 98, and a few were starting to migrate to 2000. Thus we were left playing the middleman.

To take a broader view of things. If I buy a automobile in 2005, I expect it to be able to park it in the same driveway as and older automobile I purchased in 2000. Or does it make sense to you that I should have to purchase two new cars or else purchase a used car to match the year of the car I am replacing?

ah military lol
i re-read what i wrote and i dont think i got across what i wanted completely. What i tried to imply in that is that it looks more like your work environment consisted of a bunch of different departments or areas that on the IT level didn't communicate well in regard to a standard>in regard to how up-to-date everything is.

When I worked for my local county we upgraded the entire county when we upgraded (in phases, but overall short amount of time), we didnt leave other areas hanging w/ win95 machines like in your case...but I assume, just like u, i had no real control over how things went in the larger scheme of things. It just happened and we deal with it as it is... blah, i hate that lol

MS is etting all upset because someone actually wants to use something else besides Office? Freedom of choice is a beautiful thing. If MS is losing money over this, then perhaps they ought to rethink some of their license and pricing policies. I stopped using Office years ago. It's become way to bloated and overpriced. In fact, I think it's a bit egotistical of MS to whine over something like this...it's about time someone showed them the door and proved they don't own everyone.

There's a bit of a recurring misconception here that Microsoft is encouraging the media to spread.

Firstly, the plan is plainly NOT primarily about "cost", but (as the recordings and transcripts of the recent meeting make clear) rather about "soveriegnty" (that is, the state's data belongs to the STATE and its citizens, not Microsoft Corporation or any other entity.). The focus is on ensuring that the state's data is in a format that is completely and openly documented, is readily implementable by anyone without restrictions (Microsoft carefully crafted their "patent" license for their data format in a manner designed to forbid "GPL"-licensed software from being able to agree to the terms), and is of a standard that is not under exclusive control of a single entity.

"Microsoft" has not, by any means, been locked out. They need only support the OASIS format in their "Office" suite to remain in consideration. This CAN'T be all that difficult, given that not only is the format openly documented and available under terms that by no means prevent Microsoft from implementing them, but Microsoft's own "Office 12" format looks suspiciously similar to the OASIS format (in essence, they are BOTH "a bunch of .xml files and media files in a ".zip" archive"), so they're obviously familiar with the format...

Of course, Microsoft's other alternative is to cease demanding a variety of restrictions and give up exclusive control of THEIR "Office 12" format. If they were to do that, then "Office 12" format would qualify as a properly "open" format as well.

Naturally, Microsoft doesn't want to do either, because it will weaken their hold on their customers' data.

I am in favor of companies promoting their products and making a profit (if they're good enough). I'm equally in favor of states being creative and trying to save OUR money. I use MS Office at work and OO at home - and am comfortable with both. There are a couple of caveats. .doc, .xls, and .mdb have become fairly common standards (with apologies to rtf, csv and xml). Even if Massachusetts switches to the OpenDocument format, they will certainly be receiving the above mentioned MS formats from most corporations, other states and other countries. In the past I was able to import/export between MS Word and WordPerfect, but formatting changes were often an issue. I'd recommend MA to have one large department do a beta for six months and receive their feedback prior to making any long-term commitments. Otherwise, they may face the possibility of spending more money than they saved to revert back.

iWork, is best, but thats only for macs, M$ office 2003 pro, in my opinion remains the best office software for PC, ive tried OO and wasent too impressed, as for staroffice im not sure.

I suppose I'm not very familiar with the OpenDocument format. Can MSOffice products read them? If not, doesn't that present a bit of a problem for the state in sending files to the rest of the world, which mostly uses MSOffice? I could be wrong there, so I just wanted to clarify.

OpenOffice allows one to save documents in OpenDocument, MS Office, .rtf, html, as well as .pdf formats, among others. Some will say there are compatibility issues when saving in other formats, which I have not experienced using the latest versions of OpenOffice or StarOffice. Since MS cannot do the above, my personal feeling is that there is more flexibility with OpenOffice...I know others will disagree. I quit using MS Office 2003, about a year and a half ago and have been very satisfied with OpenOffice, myself.

> OpenOffice allows one to save documents ...
> in .pdf formats

Actually, only Acrobat can save in PDF format. Openoffice.org can EXPORT to PDF. The difference is the PDF that Openoffice.org creates is essentially one big embedded JPG, which is generally fine for what most people use PDF for, but it's not searchable, can't contain forms or protection, and is generally MUCH less forgiving than Acrobat's native PDFs.

OO.o PDFs are kinda like making a Xerox copy of your document and scanning it in.

(I'm an OpenOffice.org user, btw)

There are a few other programs that do make pdf's http://fileforum.betanew...DF_Creator/1075889292/1
However, I hate pdf's. I just wanted to enlighten you.

MS Bashers, the floor is yours. I'm sure you guys love reading stuff like this.

I say let them use whatever software they want, how many poeple are in Mass anyways

"MS Bashers, the floor is yours. I'm sure you guys love reading stuff like this."

You're right. Finally, someone is standing up to the bullying monopoly that refuses to actually work with anyone. Their arguments make no sense. How is it less flexible? How is it less cost effective. Whey dont they just support it? It certainly would not be hard for a company like Microsoft. Their greed is speaking louder than reason on this issue. Its good to see that for once their bullying didn't work.

I grow so weary of people like you. Why don't you just sit down and shut your mouth?
Whether you like it or not, one day you will have to accept that obviously MSFT knows what they are doing. I'm not saying I'm for "bullying" as you put it. Though I feel you are mistaken there too. You don't get to be the best in the business by being a nice guy. You have to come up with something FIRST, and you have to be the FIRST to put it out there. If people use it and people like it, then who are you to say its wrong?
Face it, MSFT will be a huge player in the software industry for years to come.

So again, sit down, shutup and tell it to someone who cares.

You should go read the comments Microsoft made about this decision. It's enough to make anyone want to bash them.

When has MS truly been "first" except in stealing technology? From it's inception MS has taken other companies technology and driven companies with better technology out of business to the point that any resonable person can see they have a monopoly. Both the US and EU have acknowledged this.

And I am somewhat weary of people like you. MSFT knows what they're doing? Not necessarily. They have made a lot of blunders, including regarding the Internet itself. Bill Gates declared in essence that they didn't see much of an use for the Internet. Their first attempt at a commercial presence was such a horrible blunder that they rather not acknowledge the attempt.

Microsoft uses "Embrace and extend". Java is one such example. You show a lack of understanding of Microsoft practices.

"If people use it and people like it, then who are you to say its wrong?"

False logic/reasoning. Many people use illegal drugs and like them. Are they right? Not just adults, but large numbers of teens have used illegal drugs. Etc. Also, you are not taking into account usability issues. Just because large numbers of people like and use something, it does not mean that something is all that usable or accessable.

"So again, sit down, shutup and tell it to someone who cares."

Uncalled for. Why don't you become knowledgeable before you make a fool out of yourself again?

over 6,400,000 mm, so? lets wait for the next government to catch on

I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic. Why do you think they 'obviously know what they are doing', and do you think they are doing it as a service to Mass, or to themselves?

Just because someone is first (which, in the realm of office software, Microsoft was not), why does that then make them the 'best' solution?

I don't doubt that Microsoft will be 'a huge player in the software industry for years to come', however I would be surprised if they don't achieve that without evolving during that time too.

i think he (tux) was arguing that just cause they are the largest company with the most products and scale across the world we shouldn't hate them?

pretty crappy. Seriously, if I knew a darn thing about Linux, then I wouldn't be on MS right now. I'm sick of patching for hours, twice a month approx for every program they have, heck, they have crital flaws they have not fixed and i'm not just talking remote access. I have programs that crash even XP, like Windows Movie Maker 2.0, yeah they updated and it still sux! I don't care if its a cruddy program, make it compatible with ya damn OS!

I digress, MS is a bloated hungry beast and i wish more would seek alternatives, it has nothing to do with jealousy or lack of understanding of what it is to be 'powerful'

i swear it's like you are ordering us to be their lapdog, go hump their leg somewhere else and leave us out of it

I would love to have an alternative to most MS products, only part of MS Office 2k3 that I like is outlook and that is cause most syncing software revolves around it.

I use WInXP only because I have to, to be able to use the hardware I have as it was suppose to be used.

If I could get my hardware and the games I play running in linux with some decent speed and framerates I would give MS the finger and never look back.

I have to support there crap on a daily basis and make sure the patches are pushed out nightly to diffrent subnets and let the machine boot eleventybillion times for the multitude of patches. If this is inovation and best technology can I go back to using pencil and pad?

I seriously think the people that think MS is the end all be all really go look at the rest of the world by taking the MS blinders off and removing something out MS out of your mouth for a moment or two.

Go MA for taking this giant and difficult step!! Maybe backwards GA will be next?

"Seriously, if I knew a darn thing about Linux, then I wouldn't be on MS right now."

I thought like you did for a while but once i got into it I realized it's not that hard to use at all. I've been using Linux for a little over 2 months now. the only reason I still have windows on one of my machines at all is because i still haven't made it around to converting my wma files to another format.

You're right about their own software crashing windows. I had those same problems. Only like a lot of Linux users my hatred of microsoft has nothing to do with their products. i actually liked a good many programs they make. What I don't like is their monopolistic practices and the overpricing of their software. That monopolistic nature is the same reason I refuse to use intel parts in my computers.

I am not sure if Georgia plans to switch, however, I know that California is planning something similar to Mass. I read it in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, around a month ago. Schwarzenegger gave an interview (probably in German ;-)) there. He just mentioned about the possible change. He did not tell any details, but he made it pretty clear.

I will be brief. I think that Mass. is right. It is not the question of money only. More important that the standards are open (i.e. everyone can make a converter, or build a program around it) so they belong to the public, not to only one company. Microsoft strikingly resembles the USSR during the rule of Brezhnev. Equal openness, flexibility and the will of cooperating with everybody around.

"I'm sick of patching for hours, twice a month approx for every program they have"

If you had ever used Linux you would see we have to update it weekly if not more. I am not bashing MS or Linux, just pointing out a fact.

there's nothing stopping companies and governments from converting over to linux/OpenOffice. Why don't they just do it, everyone says MS applies so much monopolistic pressure on them, but really what can MS do if these entities just convert? What's stopping them? certainly not MS, so I don't believe MS has anything to do with the "others" not converting to the open standard, if it is actually true that you can do ALL of what MS Office can do + more (in that particular area >office<)

<-- linux / OO user myself, but I still like MS Office much much better.
I just use CrossOver Office Pro with the few MS products that I need in order to stay compliant with the rest of the world around me, works like a charm.

There are many reasons that companies can't just cut over.

One example could be remote access. Companies spend a fortune on infrastructure to support remote access and if they all switched they would have to replace that infrastructure OR purchase clients to connect adding in some cases more than the cost of Windows licenses.

Many companies that can though, have been. ;-)

>>"I'm sick of patching for hours, twice a month approx for every program they have"

If you had ever used Linux you would see we have to update it weekly if not more. I am not bashing MS or Linux, just pointing out a fact.<<

I would recommend that you look into a Linux distribution that utilizes an automatic package management system such as apt or yum. It make the whole patching issue trivial. As a matter of fact whilst writing this, I ran ‘yum update' and update five different software packages.

Um what was your point?
I know that it updates and it is done in the background most of the time. And so will Windows with Automatic Updates. I was making a point that even Linux he will have to update even more so.

>>Um what was your point?<<

No point, please more along.

Whenever I see the phrase ‘tired of patching’ I assume the poster is referring the the inability of Linux systems to update gracefully and my eyesight tends to go blurry. Not unlike when a doctor hit your knee with a little hammer. Sorry

Please elaborate on this.. I want to understand your argument. To me, it seems like saying, "We don't want to fix New Orleans because our feet might get wet."

You may have some valid logic behind your argument, but I just think you're point out the most inconsequential part. Servers can run multiple OS's, switched and network infrastructure runs independant of OS.

Remote Access is probably a valid conclusion is you're using a Windows VPN solution, but the vast majority of large scale enterprises rely on systems like Checkpoint.

I find that the larger roadblock is the non-technical management that exists at the 3C levels (CEO, CIO, CAO). They tend to see the things as "It's Microsoft, they make lots of money, they must be good."

Most IT personnel feel that Linux and Open Source is great but community developed solutions rarely lead to a user friendly product. Generally speaking, without a group of dedicated programmers to tweak open source apps to the environments you want them to run, open source apps are not well received by non-technical end users.

Yes, I pointed out the most inconsequential part because it is very expensive. It's a fine example of how much it costs to switch when looking at the big picture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big advocate of OSS however only when it's cost effective.

But what specific "infrastructure" are you referring to replacing!!

Allow me to get more specific. Say for example, I have a server farm where I have say 300 servers running Windows 2000 Server's various flavors. If I decide that I'm going to move to open source, are you saying that I need to replace all 200 servers, all of my Cisco switches, my checkpoint firewall, my intrustion detection/prevention devices, my fibre optic storage arrays, and all of my client's printers and PC's?

I think not! All of these devices will support other operating systems. You cannot factor age into this equation because I would have to replace outdated equipment even if I stayed with Microsoft solutions.

Sorry fewt, I think you point is mute.

I'm saying if you aren't using Cisco that you have to pay for a very expensive license for your new Linux clients.

Look at the big picture. Not all companies use Cisco VPN devices.

Example, I know of several companies that use Nortel VPN. Nortel does not make a Linux client. If they decide to switch to OSS on their desktops, then suddenly they either have to rip out that infrastructure or they need to purchase licenses from Apani @ about $100 a pop.

I'm sorry, you obviously don't have that much experience in IT.

If you are using Cisco VPN you can just download a client, and off you go.

I never mentioned anything about switches or storage arrays. Try reading my whole comment next time. ;-)