<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_0116222</id>
	<title>Australian Senate Hears Open Source Is Too Expensive</title>
	<author>samzenpus</author>
	<datestamp>1265882280000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>schliz writes <i>"The Australian Government Information Management Office says that <a href="http://itnews.com.au/News/166884,open-source-not-free-senate-hears.aspx">a platform change to open source could cost more than it saves</a>. It was pushed to investigate open source software to reduce its AUD$500m budget at a Senate meeting yesterday. From the article: 'Agencies are obliged to consider value for money on each occasion they apply a software,' spokesperson Graham Fry said. 'If the cost of assessing it [open source] was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>schliz writes " The Australian Government Information Management Office says that a platform change to open source could cost more than it saves .
It was pushed to investigate open source software to reduce its AUD $ 500m budget at a Senate meeting yesterday .
From the article : 'Agencies are obliged to consider value for money on each occasion they apply a software, ' spokesperson Graham Fry said .
'If the cost of assessing it [ open source ] was greater than the cost of the software , you would have to think twice .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>schliz writes "The Australian Government Information Management Office says that a platform change to open source could cost more than it saves.
It was pushed to investigate open source software to reduce its AUD$500m budget at a Senate meeting yesterday.
From the article: 'Agencies are obliged to consider value for money on each occasion they apply a software,' spokesperson Graham Fry said.
'If the cost of assessing it [open source] was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098358</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265896440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.</p></div><p>Ah, the hallmark of EFF astroturfers.</p><p>That statement is, at best, speculative.   In the long run, propietary software may indeed be the right mixture of value and cost.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the long term it 's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor 's lock-in.Ah , the hallmark of EFF astroturfers.That statement is , at best , speculative .
In the long run , propietary software may indeed be the right mixture of value and cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.Ah, the hallmark of EFF astroturfers.That statement is, at best, speculative.
In the long run, propietary software may indeed be the right mixture of value and cost.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31172078</id>
	<title>Re:Graham Fry = idiot</title>
	<author>IT Slave</author>
	<datestamp>1265049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Also, there's cost associated with any change or even an upgrade.  Do they take into account that Microsoft has 3 year upgrade path for all their products?  No one stays stagnant, and do they compare the assessment to upgrade or going to other vendors.  Maybe they still have Lotus 123 or some DR DOS laying around.  My company still has Reel tapes, but now drive to read from them.  I just love the absence of logical thought in politics, just love how it's better to say something for reaction sake rather than cold hard facts that compare apples with apples or maybe Macintoshes?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also , there 's cost associated with any change or even an upgrade .
Do they take into account that Microsoft has 3 year upgrade path for all their products ?
No one stays stagnant , and do they compare the assessment to upgrade or going to other vendors .
Maybe they still have Lotus 123 or some DR DOS laying around .
My company still has Reel tapes , but now drive to read from them .
I just love the absence of logical thought in politics , just love how it 's better to say something for reaction sake rather than cold hard facts that compare apples with apples or maybe Macintoshes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also, there's cost associated with any change or even an upgrade.
Do they take into account that Microsoft has 3 year upgrade path for all their products?
No one stays stagnant, and do they compare the assessment to upgrade or going to other vendors.
Maybe they still have Lotus 123 or some DR DOS laying around.
My company still has Reel tapes, but now drive to read from them.
I just love the absence of logical thought in politics, just love how it's better to say something for reaction sake rather than cold hard facts that compare apples with apples or maybe Macintoshes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31107214</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly true for CAD</title>
	<author>Lunzo</author>
	<datestamp>1265891880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>How many government beaurocrats use CAD? For the handful that do you could still give them windows machines and switch everyone else.</htmltext>
<tokenext>How many government beaurocrats use CAD ?
For the handful that do you could still give them windows machines and switch everyone else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How many government beaurocrats use CAD?
For the handful that do you could still give them windows machines and switch everyone else.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098062</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.</p></div><p>Project foo stops being actively maintained. You hire 5 developers, 2 testers to work on it. You pay them ~50-60k/yr. (5 devs, 2 testers - This is for a smallish project.)</p><p>You can do the math and decide if that is worth the cost of sticking with open source or just paying the license cost<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p><p>I know what I'd choose.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, the hallmark of Microsoft astroturfers.</p></div><p>Actually, saying you "love" linux is necessary when taking an opposite stance because F/OSS cheerleaders like you downmod anything critical of your beloved religion.</p><p>Or maybe in you're paranoid mind you think MS actually gives a shit about slashdot comments.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the long term it 's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor 's lock-in.Project foo stops being actively maintained .
You hire 5 developers , 2 testers to work on it .
You pay them ~ 50-60k/yr .
( 5 devs , 2 testers - This is for a smallish project .
) You can do the math and decide if that is worth the cost of sticking with open source or just paying the license cost ; ) I know what I 'd choose.Oh , the hallmark of Microsoft astroturfers.Actually , saying you " love " linux is necessary when taking an opposite stance because F/OSS cheerleaders like you downmod anything critical of your beloved religion.Or maybe in you 're paranoid mind you think MS actually gives a shit about slashdot comments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.Project foo stops being actively maintained.
You hire 5 developers, 2 testers to work on it.
You pay them ~50-60k/yr.
(5 devs, 2 testers - This is for a smallish project.
)You can do the math and decide if that is worth the cost of sticking with open source or just paying the license cost ;)I know what I'd choose.Oh, the hallmark of Microsoft astroturfers.Actually, saying you "love" linux is necessary when taking an opposite stance because F/OSS cheerleaders like you downmod anything critical of your beloved religion.Or maybe in you're paranoid mind you think MS actually gives a shit about slashdot comments.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098284</id>
	<title>Considering the savings for one year...</title>
	<author>Culture20</author>
	<datestamp>1265895660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...sure, I'll buy that.  Considering the savings in perpetuity, proprietary software fails hard.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...sure , I 'll buy that .
Considering the savings in perpetuity , proprietary software fails hard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...sure, I'll buy that.
Considering the savings in perpetuity, proprietary software fails hard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099742</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Vu1turEMaN</author>
	<datestamp>1265904660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Comment to your 3rd point:</p><p>I will use my free copy of Office 2003 until the day I die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Comment to your 3rd point : I will use my free copy of Office 2003 until the day I die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comment to your 3rd point:I will use my free copy of Office 2003 until the day I die.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098038</id>
	<title>MARE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">40,000 coming worthwhile. So I A saPd world. At</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>40,000 coming worthwhile .
So I A saPd world .
At [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>40,000 coming worthwhile.
So I A saPd world.
At [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31169558</id>
	<title>Microsoft Lobbying</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reminds me of the Halloween documents leaked from Microsoft a few years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Halloween\_documents\_leak</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reminds me of the Halloween documents leaked from Microsoft a few years ago http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft \ _Halloween \ _documents \ _leak</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reminds me of the Halloween documents leaked from Microsoft a few years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft\_Halloween\_documents\_leak</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098380</id>
	<title>Government != Corporate</title>
	<author>Erikderzweite</author>
	<datestamp>1265896680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For governmental use open-source is preferable even if it initially costs more -- you end up paying to your local software support and programmers, creating more jobs, supporting local IT industry and, most important, contributing to own GDP. Money payed for foreign company is money lost for your country, while money payed to local developers stays and works.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For governmental use open-source is preferable even if it initially costs more -- you end up paying to your local software support and programmers , creating more jobs , supporting local IT industry and , most important , contributing to own GDP .
Money payed for foreign company is money lost for your country , while money payed to local developers stays and works .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For governmental use open-source is preferable even if it initially costs more -- you end up paying to your local software support and programmers, creating more jobs, supporting local IT industry and, most important, contributing to own GDP.
Money payed for foreign company is money lost for your country, while money payed to local developers stays and works.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101266</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Maxo-Texas</author>
	<datestamp>1265912040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;What the very short article DOESN'T mention is what we in the industry have known for years:</p><p>&gt;1) A software LICENSE isn't always cheaper than software SUPPORT. And you DO need support for your platform, open source or not.</p><p>a) most small businesses do not have software support contracts but your point is valid for a large office however...<br>b) support for excel, word, project, etc. at my company has been near zero for years.  Office software just doesn't need support.  When you do need support, its usually a corrupt document and support can't help you and it's easier to just recreate the document (or do as I did and load the document into Openoffice, save it in word format, fix the minor cosmetic changes in my now reusable document that no longer crashes Word on open).<br>c) in any case, small businesses and personal use seems to be where the conversion is taking place.  large companies and governments are doing it very slowly.  Personally, I'm getting tired of gold plated governments in marble clad mansions who think they can infinitely raise taxes to pay for their largess.</p><p>&gt;2) Using a well established vendor software (like say windows), means it's easier (cheaper) to educate people in the software they'll be using, and similarly easier to find qualified support (in house and outsourced alike).<br>a) Again...no training any more.  Perhaps its different at other companies.  We were thrown on 2007 without warning or training.  I suffered about 5 months lower productivity and finally recovered.<br>b) Opensource tools are getting much better lately.  The ones I've used frequently also require no training.  Just read the help files when you want to do something if it isn't obvious.  This is probably not true for server administration- but that's 1\% of your users.  99\% use office and one or two commercial applications (we can't even install anything to our computers any more unless we are a developer).</p><p>&gt;3) Open source doesn't mean the software is FREE, it just means it is open source. Many companies supply the source code for review when they sell their software to customers.<br>a) Valid- tho not for Thunderbird, Gmail, Google Docs, Linux, Azureus, Gimp, Audacity, Openoffice, etc., etc., etc.</p><p>&gt;4) The lifecycle of "well established" products is well documented (and generally very long lived), and may factor into the choice, as noone wants to scrap the &gt;software again in 3 years (and incur another switchover cost) when there's no longer any support for whatever you chose as your platform.<br>a) 3-4 years is well documented and long lived?  XP is out of support, Vista is out of support soon.  our VB applications (written at great expense) are going to have to be rewritten-- more likely we'll buy a package and drop the business advantages the custom software gave us.  meanwhile applications i wrote in C 15 years ago still run.</p><p>&gt;5) Technologically, a lot of software just inst available as open source. You may be unable to find the software you need for your platform, thus again driving &gt;the costs up if you have to develop it yourself. Noone wants to be stuck with a legacy system for the next 15 years (again).<br>a) This is a valid point except that it weighs all software equally.  I have gone to an opensource stack on windows and the only commercial software I own is Dragon Dictate.<br>b) In the closed source world, it's getting hard to get some software you want too.  As they increasingly lock down things (re the Ipad), I am getting the feeling if I want to OWN my computer and my data, I'm going to have to go opensource.  Everything else is headed towards a rental DRM'd rebuy the same data 15 times model.</p><p>&gt;So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got (or for a new installation, choose the same as everyone else) and pay a lot of &gt;licensefees, than to change to something that's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.</p><p>&gt;That said, I LOVE linux, open source and free software. But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.</p><p>a) In the long term, I found that slowly changing one application every 6 months or so allowed me to mitigate the personal time and productivity cost.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; What the very short article DOES N'T mention is what we in the industry have known for years : &gt; 1 ) A software LICENSE is n't always cheaper than software SUPPORT .
And you DO need support for your platform , open source or not.a ) most small businesses do not have software support contracts but your point is valid for a large office however...b ) support for excel , word , project , etc .
at my company has been near zero for years .
Office software just does n't need support .
When you do need support , its usually a corrupt document and support ca n't help you and it 's easier to just recreate the document ( or do as I did and load the document into Openoffice , save it in word format , fix the minor cosmetic changes in my now reusable document that no longer crashes Word on open ) .c ) in any case , small businesses and personal use seems to be where the conversion is taking place .
large companies and governments are doing it very slowly .
Personally , I 'm getting tired of gold plated governments in marble clad mansions who think they can infinitely raise taxes to pay for their largess. &gt; 2 ) Using a well established vendor software ( like say windows ) , means it 's easier ( cheaper ) to educate people in the software they 'll be using , and similarly easier to find qualified support ( in house and outsourced alike ) .a ) Again...no training any more .
Perhaps its different at other companies .
We were thrown on 2007 without warning or training .
I suffered about 5 months lower productivity and finally recovered.b ) Opensource tools are getting much better lately .
The ones I 've used frequently also require no training .
Just read the help files when you want to do something if it is n't obvious .
This is probably not true for server administration- but that 's 1 \ % of your users .
99 \ % use office and one or two commercial applications ( we ca n't even install anything to our computers any more unless we are a developer ) . &gt; 3 ) Open source does n't mean the software is FREE , it just means it is open source .
Many companies supply the source code for review when they sell their software to customers.a ) Valid- tho not for Thunderbird , Gmail , Google Docs , Linux , Azureus , Gimp , Audacity , Openoffice , etc. , etc. , etc. &gt; 4 ) The lifecycle of " well established " products is well documented ( and generally very long lived ) , and may factor into the choice , as noone wants to scrap the &gt; software again in 3 years ( and incur another switchover cost ) when there 's no longer any support for whatever you chose as your platform.a ) 3-4 years is well documented and long lived ?
XP is out of support , Vista is out of support soon .
our VB applications ( written at great expense ) are going to have to be rewritten-- more likely we 'll buy a package and drop the business advantages the custom software gave us .
meanwhile applications i wrote in C 15 years ago still run. &gt; 5 ) Technologically , a lot of software just inst available as open source .
You may be unable to find the software you need for your platform , thus again driving &gt; the costs up if you have to develop it yourself .
Noone wants to be stuck with a legacy system for the next 15 years ( again ) .a ) This is a valid point except that it weighs all software equally .
I have gone to an opensource stack on windows and the only commercial software I own is Dragon Dictate.b ) In the closed source world , it 's getting hard to get some software you want too .
As they increasingly lock down things ( re the Ipad ) , I am getting the feeling if I want to OWN my computer and my data , I 'm going to have to go opensource .
Everything else is headed towards a rental DRM 'd rebuy the same data 15 times model. &gt; So for a long term saving , it 's often cheaper to stay with what you 've got ( or for a new installation , choose the same as everyone else ) and pay a lot of &gt; licensefees , than to change to something that 's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs. &gt; That said , I LOVE linux , open source and free software .
But for commercial use , it just is n't always optimal.a ) In the long term , I found that slowly changing one application every 6 months or so allowed me to mitigate the personal time and productivity cost .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;What the very short article DOESN'T mention is what we in the industry have known for years:&gt;1) A software LICENSE isn't always cheaper than software SUPPORT.
And you DO need support for your platform, open source or not.a) most small businesses do not have software support contracts but your point is valid for a large office however...b) support for excel, word, project, etc.
at my company has been near zero for years.
Office software just doesn't need support.
When you do need support, its usually a corrupt document and support can't help you and it's easier to just recreate the document (or do as I did and load the document into Openoffice, save it in word format, fix the minor cosmetic changes in my now reusable document that no longer crashes Word on open).c) in any case, small businesses and personal use seems to be where the conversion is taking place.
large companies and governments are doing it very slowly.
Personally, I'm getting tired of gold plated governments in marble clad mansions who think they can infinitely raise taxes to pay for their largess.&gt;2) Using a well established vendor software (like say windows), means it's easier (cheaper) to educate people in the software they'll be using, and similarly easier to find qualified support (in house and outsourced alike).a) Again...no training any more.
Perhaps its different at other companies.
We were thrown on 2007 without warning or training.
I suffered about 5 months lower productivity and finally recovered.b) Opensource tools are getting much better lately.
The ones I've used frequently also require no training.
Just read the help files when you want to do something if it isn't obvious.
This is probably not true for server administration- but that's 1\% of your users.
99\% use office and one or two commercial applications (we can't even install anything to our computers any more unless we are a developer).&gt;3) Open source doesn't mean the software is FREE, it just means it is open source.
Many companies supply the source code for review when they sell their software to customers.a) Valid- tho not for Thunderbird, Gmail, Google Docs, Linux, Azureus, Gimp, Audacity, Openoffice, etc., etc., etc.&gt;4) The lifecycle of "well established" products is well documented (and generally very long lived), and may factor into the choice, as noone wants to scrap the &gt;software again in 3 years (and incur another switchover cost) when there's no longer any support for whatever you chose as your platform.a) 3-4 years is well documented and long lived?
XP is out of support, Vista is out of support soon.
our VB applications (written at great expense) are going to have to be rewritten-- more likely we'll buy a package and drop the business advantages the custom software gave us.
meanwhile applications i wrote in C 15 years ago still run.&gt;5) Technologically, a lot of software just inst available as open source.
You may be unable to find the software you need for your platform, thus again driving &gt;the costs up if you have to develop it yourself.
Noone wants to be stuck with a legacy system for the next 15 years (again).a) This is a valid point except that it weighs all software equally.
I have gone to an opensource stack on windows and the only commercial software I own is Dragon Dictate.b) In the closed source world, it's getting hard to get some software you want too.
As they increasingly lock down things (re the Ipad), I am getting the feeling if I want to OWN my computer and my data, I'm going to have to go opensource.
Everything else is headed towards a rental DRM'd rebuy the same data 15 times model.&gt;So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got (or for a new installation, choose the same as everyone else) and pay a lot of &gt;licensefees, than to change to something that's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.&gt;That said, I LOVE linux, open source and free software.
But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.a) In the long term, I found that slowly changing one application every 6 months or so allowed me to mitigate the personal time and productivity cost.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098090</id>
	<title>Open Source Initiative's definition</title>
	<author>tepples</author>
	<datestamp>1265893080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Open source doesn't mean the software is FREE, it just means it is open source.</p></div><p>The <a href="http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php" title="opensource.org">Open Source Definition</a> [opensource.org], for what it's worth, was originally based word-for-word on the <a href="http://www.debian.org/social\_contract#guidelines" title="debian.org">Debian Free Software Guidelines</a> [debian.org].</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Techonologically, a lot of software just inst available as open source.</p></div><p>I'm aware that video games are in this situation, but this article is about the public sector. Could you describe a couple genres of software used by the public sector that have no Free equivalent? Even electronic medical record software is free software, thanks to VistA CPRS developed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got</p></div><p>Until it's end-of-lifed. Migration costs from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007 aren't necessarily less than to OpenOffice.org unless employees need, for example, the Access component.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source does n't mean the software is FREE , it just means it is open source.The Open Source Definition [ opensource.org ] , for what it 's worth , was originally based word-for-word on the Debian Free Software Guidelines [ debian.org ] .Techonologically , a lot of software just inst available as open source.I 'm aware that video games are in this situation , but this article is about the public sector .
Could you describe a couple genres of software used by the public sector that have no Free equivalent ?
Even electronic medical record software is free software , thanks to VistA CPRS developed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.So for a long term saving , it 's often cheaper to stay with what you 've gotUntil it 's end-of-lifed .
Migration costs from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007 are n't necessarily less than to OpenOffice.org unless employees need , for example , the Access component .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source doesn't mean the software is FREE, it just means it is open source.The Open Source Definition [opensource.org], for what it's worth, was originally based word-for-word on the Debian Free Software Guidelines [debian.org].Techonologically, a lot of software just inst available as open source.I'm aware that video games are in this situation, but this article is about the public sector.
Could you describe a couple genres of software used by the public sector that have no Free equivalent?
Even electronic medical record software is free software, thanks to VistA CPRS developed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've gotUntil it's end-of-lifed.
Migration costs from Microsoft Office 2003 to Microsoft Office 2007 aren't necessarily less than to OpenOffice.org unless employees need, for example, the Access component.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234</id>
	<title>Sadly true for CAD</title>
	<author>Antique Geekmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1265895120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While document handling, such as the replacement of Internet Explorer and Microsoft Word dependent operations, benefit massively from the switch to standards compliant software, I'm afraid that CAD isn't there yet. Try designing circuitry or hardware with open source software and you'll see what I mean. Tools like AutoCAD for your metal work and the circuit libraries for PowerPCB just aren't avaialble in the open source equivalents.</p><p>For Active Directory, though, that monster should have been replaced by Bind and Kerberos and LDAP years ago.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While document handling , such as the replacement of Internet Explorer and Microsoft Word dependent operations , benefit massively from the switch to standards compliant software , I 'm afraid that CAD is n't there yet .
Try designing circuitry or hardware with open source software and you 'll see what I mean .
Tools like AutoCAD for your metal work and the circuit libraries for PowerPCB just are n't avaialble in the open source equivalents.For Active Directory , though , that monster should have been replaced by Bind and Kerberos and LDAP years ago .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While document handling, such as the replacement of Internet Explorer and Microsoft Word dependent operations, benefit massively from the switch to standards compliant software, I'm afraid that CAD isn't there yet.
Try designing circuitry or hardware with open source software and you'll see what I mean.
Tools like AutoCAD for your metal work and the circuit libraries for PowerPCB just aren't avaialble in the open source equivalents.For Active Directory, though, that monster should have been replaced by Bind and Kerberos and LDAP years ago.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099694</id>
	<title>All platform switches are free</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265904480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This so called "barrier" doesn't exist.</p><p>In an IT shop of any size (bet Australia qualifies), there is a continuous process of<br>upgrading platform, infrastructure and software in place.</p><p>Diverting those dollars from a prior vendor/platform/infrastructure to a new target<br>costs a big fat $0 i.e. it's budget neutral.</p><p>The only time you have to absorb dramatic costs are if you insist on a "big bang"<br>transition which not only increases your costs significantly, it increases your<br>odds of failure.</p><p>Regardless of what the Pols and Bean Counters think, their IT organization is<br>involved in a continuous change cycle.</p><p>That cycle just needs to be redirected.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This so called " barrier " does n't exist.In an IT shop of any size ( bet Australia qualifies ) , there is a continuous process ofupgrading platform , infrastructure and software in place.Diverting those dollars from a prior vendor/platform/infrastructure to a new targetcosts a big fat $ 0 i.e .
it 's budget neutral.The only time you have to absorb dramatic costs are if you insist on a " big bang " transition which not only increases your costs significantly , it increases yourodds of failure.Regardless of what the Pols and Bean Counters think , their IT organization isinvolved in a continuous change cycle.That cycle just needs to be redirected .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This so called "barrier" doesn't exist.In an IT shop of any size (bet Australia qualifies), there is a continuous process ofupgrading platform, infrastructure and software in place.Diverting those dollars from a prior vendor/platform/infrastructure to a new targetcosts a big fat $0 i.e.
it's budget neutral.The only time you have to absorb dramatic costs are if you insist on a "big bang"transition which not only increases your costs significantly, it increases yourodds of failure.Regardless of what the Pols and Bean Counters think, their IT organization isinvolved in a continuous change cycle.That cycle just needs to be redirected.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099648</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>petermgreen</author>
	<datestamp>1265904240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>In fact, they will actually not SELL it to you anymore! No such problems with open source.</i><br>Not being able to get the version you want can be a problem for individual users and small buisnesses but with MS at least it's not an issue for larger companies government institutions etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In fact , they will actually not SELL it to you anymore !
No such problems with open source.Not being able to get the version you want can be a problem for individual users and small buisnesses but with MS at least it 's not an issue for larger companies government institutions etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In fact, they will actually not SELL it to you anymore!
No such problems with open source.Not being able to get the version you want can be a problem for individual users and small buisnesses but with MS at least it's not an issue for larger companies government institutions etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098070</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098120</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Kjella</author>
	<datestamp>1265893620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.</p></div><p>This quote is really about the stock market, but the market can be wrong longer than you can be right. And one thing about open source is that it's incredibly expensive to be first and carry all the development costs. With closed source software you implicitly calculate how much it'll add to the value of the product. It may cost 5000$ to develop a feature and one company is willing to pay 1000$, but maybe you can sell it as a "nice to have" to 100 companies for 40$ each. Guess what, a closed source company can do that but an open source company can't.</p><p>Sure, in total it can be more effective, but that won't help if those who lead the plow see "Hey, I can pay 5000$ for an open source solution or 1000$ for a closed source solution. Of course all those "nice to have" companies would prefer they get it for 0$ rather than for 40$, but they're not in control. And every attempt I've seen to create any form of money pool system has been a big failure.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the long term it 's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor 's lock-in.This quote is really about the stock market , but the market can be wrong longer than you can be right .
And one thing about open source is that it 's incredibly expensive to be first and carry all the development costs .
With closed source software you implicitly calculate how much it 'll add to the value of the product .
It may cost 5000 $ to develop a feature and one company is willing to pay 1000 $ , but maybe you can sell it as a " nice to have " to 100 companies for 40 $ each .
Guess what , a closed source company can do that but an open source company ca n't.Sure , in total it can be more effective , but that wo n't help if those who lead the plow see " Hey , I can pay 5000 $ for an open source solution or 1000 $ for a closed source solution .
Of course all those " nice to have " companies would prefer they get it for 0 $ rather than for 40 $ , but they 're not in control .
And every attempt I 've seen to create any form of money pool system has been a big failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.This quote is really about the stock market, but the market can be wrong longer than you can be right.
And one thing about open source is that it's incredibly expensive to be first and carry all the development costs.
With closed source software you implicitly calculate how much it'll add to the value of the product.
It may cost 5000$ to develop a feature and one company is willing to pay 1000$, but maybe you can sell it as a "nice to have" to 100 companies for 40$ each.
Guess what, a closed source company can do that but an open source company can't.Sure, in total it can be more effective, but that won't help if those who lead the plow see "Hey, I can pay 5000$ for an open source solution or 1000$ for a closed source solution.
Of course all those "nice to have" companies would prefer they get it for 0$ rather than for 40$, but they're not in control.
And every attempt I've seen to create any form of money pool system has been a big failure.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098080</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>djjockey</author>
	<datestamp>1265892900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry in advance for what will be perceived as pro-microsoft, but here goes:</p><p>Support for OTS software, or hardware, or anything standard for that matter is very different to support for customised or specialised tools. Microsoft will not likely care that you have found a bug affecting your mission critical documents. However, I've yet to see a bug in off the shelf software that does affect mission critical documents. Not saying it'll never happen, but lets face it, most bugs are security, GUI, or minor. Wait a little before jumping to the new version, or better still wait till need has outgrown the functionality. I've seen companies running office 97 till just last year. Because it worked.</p><p>End of life ain't that bad. Most Microsoft tools have 10yrs +, and it's not like they suddenly stop working. Just accept that there won't be any support, patches or whatever. But hey, when was the last time you patched Word for one of those mission critical bugs? If you haven't found them in the 10 years, chances are it'll keep working. (ok, if Microsoft had their way, they would... but that's another issue). Custom software will lock you in more than vendors will. Maybe a generalisation, but for now, you don't like Word, change to Open Office. Yes, there's a cost, just like there is a cost for changing from Word 2003 to 2007. But when talking about enterprise systems or niche tools, it's a lot worse - you can end up changing software, vendors and business processes. All of that costs money.</p><p>I dare say that you need a lot less support buying off the shelf from a locked in vendor than going open source (you know, cause it's cool, suits your religion or seems cheaper up front).</p><p>What annoys me more is when companies don't like the off the shelf stuff and pay to hack it and redesign it - creating the worst of both worlds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry in advance for what will be perceived as pro-microsoft , but here goes : Support for OTS software , or hardware , or anything standard for that matter is very different to support for customised or specialised tools .
Microsoft will not likely care that you have found a bug affecting your mission critical documents .
However , I 've yet to see a bug in off the shelf software that does affect mission critical documents .
Not saying it 'll never happen , but lets face it , most bugs are security , GUI , or minor .
Wait a little before jumping to the new version , or better still wait till need has outgrown the functionality .
I 've seen companies running office 97 till just last year .
Because it worked.End of life ai n't that bad .
Most Microsoft tools have 10yrs + , and it 's not like they suddenly stop working .
Just accept that there wo n't be any support , patches or whatever .
But hey , when was the last time you patched Word for one of those mission critical bugs ?
If you have n't found them in the 10 years , chances are it 'll keep working .
( ok , if Microsoft had their way , they would... but that 's another issue ) .
Custom software will lock you in more than vendors will .
Maybe a generalisation , but for now , you do n't like Word , change to Open Office .
Yes , there 's a cost , just like there is a cost for changing from Word 2003 to 2007 .
But when talking about enterprise systems or niche tools , it 's a lot worse - you can end up changing software , vendors and business processes .
All of that costs money.I dare say that you need a lot less support buying off the shelf from a locked in vendor than going open source ( you know , cause it 's cool , suits your religion or seems cheaper up front ) .What annoys me more is when companies do n't like the off the shelf stuff and pay to hack it and redesign it - creating the worst of both worlds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry in advance for what will be perceived as pro-microsoft, but here goes:Support for OTS software, or hardware, or anything standard for that matter is very different to support for customised or specialised tools.
Microsoft will not likely care that you have found a bug affecting your mission critical documents.
However, I've yet to see a bug in off the shelf software that does affect mission critical documents.
Not saying it'll never happen, but lets face it, most bugs are security, GUI, or minor.
Wait a little before jumping to the new version, or better still wait till need has outgrown the functionality.
I've seen companies running office 97 till just last year.
Because it worked.End of life ain't that bad.
Most Microsoft tools have 10yrs +, and it's not like they suddenly stop working.
Just accept that there won't be any support, patches or whatever.
But hey, when was the last time you patched Word for one of those mission critical bugs?
If you haven't found them in the 10 years, chances are it'll keep working.
(ok, if Microsoft had their way, they would... but that's another issue).
Custom software will lock you in more than vendors will.
Maybe a generalisation, but for now, you don't like Word, change to Open Office.
Yes, there's a cost, just like there is a cost for changing from Word 2003 to 2007.
But when talking about enterprise systems or niche tools, it's a lot worse - you can end up changing software, vendors and business processes.
All of that costs money.I dare say that you need a lot less support buying off the shelf from a locked in vendor than going open source (you know, cause it's cool, suits your religion or seems cheaper up front).What annoys me more is when companies don't like the off the shelf stuff and pay to hack it and redesign it - creating the worst of both worlds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098248</id>
	<title>an interesting thread, but...</title>
	<author>pointbeing</author>
	<datestamp>1265895240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...software costs are so low that for me they're not even on the radar.  For me the biggest factor in TCO is <b>people</b> costs, not hardware or software.</p><p>In the quantities I procure what used to be called the MS Desktop Pro license (a copy of the current desktop OS, copy of the current version of MS Office Professional Plus and Windows server and Exchange CALs) costs me ~$200 per year per workstation - chickenfeed, really.</p><p>A call to the helpdesk costs about $25, a deskside visit costs about twice that but since it isn't my field I'm not gonna address application development costs, even if I did think our developers were smart enough to code in something other than Windows.  Hell, they can't even figure out how to make existing applications compatible with IE8.</p><p>But I digress - support types generally have little love for software developers and vice versa<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p><p>Anyway, over the long term open source software would probably save money but in the short- and medium-term (let's say three years) migration costs would be ridiculously expensive - sticker shock alone keeps it out of the budget.</p><p>Part of the up side is I'd be able to extend PC and server lifecycles for a year or so since Linux generally requires less hardware than Windows, but as mentioned earlier OO Spreadsheet is not an acceptable replacement for MS Excel for power users and there is no direct migration between MS Access and OO Database - the only way you can get them to play nice with each other is through an ODBC connector.</p><p>I've got one 500-user Access database (yeah, the person who thought that up should be fired but it happened before I hired in) that simply can't be migrated to OO - right now I'm trying to get it migrated to either SQL or Oracle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...software costs are so low that for me they 're not even on the radar .
For me the biggest factor in TCO is people costs , not hardware or software.In the quantities I procure what used to be called the MS Desktop Pro license ( a copy of the current desktop OS , copy of the current version of MS Office Professional Plus and Windows server and Exchange CALs ) costs me ~ $ 200 per year per workstation - chickenfeed , really.A call to the helpdesk costs about $ 25 , a deskside visit costs about twice that but since it is n't my field I 'm not gon na address application development costs , even if I did think our developers were smart enough to code in something other than Windows .
Hell , they ca n't even figure out how to make existing applications compatible with IE8.But I digress - support types generally have little love for software developers and vice versa ; - ) Anyway , over the long term open source software would probably save money but in the short- and medium-term ( let 's say three years ) migration costs would be ridiculously expensive - sticker shock alone keeps it out of the budget.Part of the up side is I 'd be able to extend PC and server lifecycles for a year or so since Linux generally requires less hardware than Windows , but as mentioned earlier OO Spreadsheet is not an acceptable replacement for MS Excel for power users and there is no direct migration between MS Access and OO Database - the only way you can get them to play nice with each other is through an ODBC connector.I 've got one 500-user Access database ( yeah , the person who thought that up should be fired but it happened before I hired in ) that simply ca n't be migrated to OO - right now I 'm trying to get it migrated to either SQL or Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...software costs are so low that for me they're not even on the radar.
For me the biggest factor in TCO is people costs, not hardware or software.In the quantities I procure what used to be called the MS Desktop Pro license (a copy of the current desktop OS, copy of the current version of MS Office Professional Plus and Windows server and Exchange CALs) costs me ~$200 per year per workstation - chickenfeed, really.A call to the helpdesk costs about $25, a deskside visit costs about twice that but since it isn't my field I'm not gonna address application development costs, even if I did think our developers were smart enough to code in something other than Windows.
Hell, they can't even figure out how to make existing applications compatible with IE8.But I digress - support types generally have little love for software developers and vice versa ;-)Anyway, over the long term open source software would probably save money but in the short- and medium-term (let's say three years) migration costs would be ridiculously expensive - sticker shock alone keeps it out of the budget.Part of the up side is I'd be able to extend PC and server lifecycles for a year or so since Linux generally requires less hardware than Windows, but as mentioned earlier OO Spreadsheet is not an acceptable replacement for MS Excel for power users and there is no direct migration between MS Access and OO Database - the only way you can get them to play nice with each other is through an ODBC connector.I've got one 500-user Access database (yeah, the person who thought that up should be fired but it happened before I hired in) that simply can't be migrated to OO - right now I'm trying to get it migrated to either SQL or Oracle.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097708</id>
	<title>Re:Do this guys know the definition of user lock-i</title>
	<author>rtb61</author>
	<datestamp>1265888340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> The bureaucrats last far longer than that and ultimately they are often the ones that make decisions by undermining decisions more often based upon power plays and ego, rather than upon sound economic decisions. In this case one person was making statements full of if, could, necessarily, assumption, all to cover the fact that they had not bothered to conduct any research. The reason for the lack of research, that research could cost more than $500 million dollars a year, one could only guess that Graham Fry was intending to contract out the research into using open source software to a closed source proprietary software company. </p><p> Obviously Fry has no concept of foreign debt, no understanding of maintaining control over software upgrade cycles, no idea about monitoring historical trends and how many times they have bought the same software, no concept at all of life cycle costing, believes the lie that closed source proprietary software is free of maintenance costs and, fails to understand how governments choices in this sector impact upon private industry choices and further impact foreign by a nominal factor of 10 (500 million becomes 5 billion). A true asshat that does not belong in a role that legacy, longevity and, political astuteness has provided him, rather than expertise, national economic awareness or even basic common sence. Sounds like the Green Party in Australia is far more technologically aware than the rest (they also oppose censorship). </p><p> It seems that global trend of the right shifting to the loony bin and the left shifting to the right of centre leaving the humanity and environment (over greed and power) based parties, in this case the Greens, to take up the centre left position, holds true. With FOSS the bulk of the money in software can always be spent locally and that's down to state and city level, not just country.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The bureaucrats last far longer than that and ultimately they are often the ones that make decisions by undermining decisions more often based upon power plays and ego , rather than upon sound economic decisions .
In this case one person was making statements full of if , could , necessarily , assumption , all to cover the fact that they had not bothered to conduct any research .
The reason for the lack of research , that research could cost more than $ 500 million dollars a year , one could only guess that Graham Fry was intending to contract out the research into using open source software to a closed source proprietary software company .
Obviously Fry has no concept of foreign debt , no understanding of maintaining control over software upgrade cycles , no idea about monitoring historical trends and how many times they have bought the same software , no concept at all of life cycle costing , believes the lie that closed source proprietary software is free of maintenance costs and , fails to understand how governments choices in this sector impact upon private industry choices and further impact foreign by a nominal factor of 10 ( 500 million becomes 5 billion ) .
A true asshat that does not belong in a role that legacy , longevity and , political astuteness has provided him , rather than expertise , national economic awareness or even basic common sence .
Sounds like the Green Party in Australia is far more technologically aware than the rest ( they also oppose censorship ) .
It seems that global trend of the right shifting to the loony bin and the left shifting to the right of centre leaving the humanity and environment ( over greed and power ) based parties , in this case the Greens , to take up the centre left position , holds true .
With FOSS the bulk of the money in software can always be spent locally and that 's down to state and city level , not just country .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The bureaucrats last far longer than that and ultimately they are often the ones that make decisions by undermining decisions more often based upon power plays and ego, rather than upon sound economic decisions.
In this case one person was making statements full of if, could, necessarily, assumption, all to cover the fact that they had not bothered to conduct any research.
The reason for the lack of research, that research could cost more than $500 million dollars a year, one could only guess that Graham Fry was intending to contract out the research into using open source software to a closed source proprietary software company.
Obviously Fry has no concept of foreign debt, no understanding of maintaining control over software upgrade cycles, no idea about monitoring historical trends and how many times they have bought the same software, no concept at all of life cycle costing, believes the lie that closed source proprietary software is free of maintenance costs and, fails to understand how governments choices in this sector impact upon private industry choices and further impact foreign by a nominal factor of 10 (500 million becomes 5 billion).
A true asshat that does not belong in a role that legacy, longevity and, political astuteness has provided him, rather than expertise, national economic awareness or even basic common sence.
Sounds like the Green Party in Australia is far more technologically aware than the rest (they also oppose censorship).
It seems that global trend of the right shifting to the loony bin and the left shifting to the right of centre leaving the humanity and environment (over greed and power) based parties, in this case the Greens, to take up the centre left position, holds true.
With FOSS the bulk of the money in software can always be spent locally and that's down to state and city level, not just country.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097524</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099302</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>StuartHankins</author>
	<datestamp>1265902320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Poor attempt at 'turfing. Many of your points are so obviously false that you must have to bite your forked tongue when you say them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Poor attempt at 'turfing .
Many of your points are so obviously false that you must have to bite your forked tongue when you say them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Poor attempt at 'turfing.
Many of your points are so obviously false that you must have to bite your forked tongue when you say them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098134</id>
	<title>(PLUS OnE INFORMATIVE)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><A HREF="http://goat.cx/" title="goat.cx" rel="nofollow">smells worse than a time wholesome and Number of FrreBSD</a> [goat.cx]</htmltext>
<tokenext>smells worse than a time wholesome and Number of FrreBSD [ goat.cx ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>smells worse than a time wholesome and Number of FrreBSD [goat.cx]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099270</id>
	<title>Costs</title>
	<author>jbengt</author>
	<datestamp>1265902200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If the cost of assessing it [open source] was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice</p></div><p>And how will you know the cost of the software if you don't asses it?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If the cost of assessing it [ open source ] was greater than the cost of the software , you would have to think twiceAnd how will you know the cost of the software if you do n't asses it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the cost of assessing it [open source] was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twiceAnd how will you know the cost of the software if you don't asses it?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101370</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly true for CAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>For Active Directory, though, that monster should have been replaced by Bind and Kerberos and LDAP years ago.</p></div><p>The latter do not have Group Policies, which is handy for dealing with large numbers of machines. Hopefully Samba 4 will fix that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>For Active Directory , though , that monster should have been replaced by Bind and Kerberos and LDAP years ago.The latter do not have Group Policies , which is handy for dealing with large numbers of machines .
Hopefully Samba 4 will fix that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For Active Directory, though, that monster should have been replaced by Bind and Kerberos and LDAP years ago.The latter do not have Group Policies, which is handy for dealing with large numbers of machines.
Hopefully Samba 4 will fix that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478</id>
	<title>Do this guys know the definition of user lock-in?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265885880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Australian Senate Hears Open Source Is Too Expensive</p><p>Well, dear senators, this is a normal consequence of vendor lock-in:</p><p>"In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in, or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without SUBSTANTIAL switching COSTS. Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly."</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor\_lock-in" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor\_lock-in</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>So, of course, there will be a substantial cost for switching<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p><p>In the end, it all depends on how long you wish to stay locked-in. You have to consider the matter in the long term to see the advantages, and long-term thinking is seldom seen in modern politics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Australian Senate Hears Open Source Is Too ExpensiveWell , dear senators , this is a normal consequence of vendor lock-in : " In economics , vendor lock-in , also known as proprietary lock-in , or customer lock-in , makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services , unable to use another vendor without SUBSTANTIAL switching COSTS .
Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly .
" http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor \ _lock-in [ wikipedia.org ] So , of course , there will be a substantial cost for switching ; - ) ) In the end , it all depends on how long you wish to stay locked-in .
You have to consider the matter in the long term to see the advantages , and long-term thinking is seldom seen in modern politics ; - ) )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Australian Senate Hears Open Source Is Too ExpensiveWell, dear senators, this is a normal consequence of vendor lock-in:"In economics, vendor lock-in, also known as proprietary lock-in, or customer lock-in, makes a customer dependent on a vendor for products and services, unable to use another vendor without SUBSTANTIAL switching COSTS.
Lock-in costs which create barriers to market entry may result in antitrust action against a monopoly.
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor\_lock-in [wikipedia.org]So, of course, there will be a substantial cost for switching ;-))In the end, it all depends on how long you wish to stay locked-in.
You have to consider the matter in the long term to see the advantages, and long-term thinking is seldom seen in modern politics ;-))</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098616</id>
	<title>Re:Graham Fry = idiot</title>
	<author>Mattskimo</author>
	<datestamp>1265898720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Just because software is open source doesn't necessarily mean licenses to use it are free. Open source and free software often overlap but they are not one and the same thing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because software is open source does n't necessarily mean licenses to use it are free .
Open source and free software often overlap but they are not one and the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because software is open source doesn't necessarily mean licenses to use it are free.
Open source and free software often overlap but they are not one and the same thing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099866</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1265905200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Using a well established vendor software (like say windows), means it's easier (cheaper) to educate people in the software they'll be using, and similarly easier to find qualified support (in house and outsourced alike).</i></p><p>wait, what?  how the hell can you say that with a straight face?   I don't have Microsoft coming out here to train my people.  I don't have MSFT offering training classes.   Hell they wont even support it without a credit card number.</p><p>I get BETTER support from redhat than I ever got from microsoft.  In fact I have a larger pool of educational materials and peer support with our linux servers than I ever had with microsoft products.</p><p>Microsoft gives you support if you are willing to pay through the nose.  They drag out all their help to make sure they charge a lot of hours.  I have never had a problem even a complex SQL server problem that the OSS support companies I have dealt with did not solve in a very quick manner.</p><p>Compared to a MSSQL server issue that microsoft took 40 billed hours to solve, that was a problem they discovered 6 hours in but ignored it.</p><p>(8 processor SQL server with 64 gig ram and a 3TB raid 50 array in 2004, this was big iron... and it was a BUG in MSSQL Enterprise edition, MSSQL  large amount of ram caused a memory leak that makes the server slowly die.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using a well established vendor software ( like say windows ) , means it 's easier ( cheaper ) to educate people in the software they 'll be using , and similarly easier to find qualified support ( in house and outsourced alike ) .wait , what ?
how the hell can you say that with a straight face ?
I do n't have Microsoft coming out here to train my people .
I do n't have MSFT offering training classes .
Hell they wont even support it without a credit card number.I get BETTER support from redhat than I ever got from microsoft .
In fact I have a larger pool of educational materials and peer support with our linux servers than I ever had with microsoft products.Microsoft gives you support if you are willing to pay through the nose .
They drag out all their help to make sure they charge a lot of hours .
I have never had a problem even a complex SQL server problem that the OSS support companies I have dealt with did not solve in a very quick manner.Compared to a MSSQL server issue that microsoft took 40 billed hours to solve , that was a problem they discovered 6 hours in but ignored it .
( 8 processor SQL server with 64 gig ram and a 3TB raid 50 array in 2004 , this was big iron... and it was a BUG in MSSQL Enterprise edition , MSSQL large amount of ram caused a memory leak that makes the server slowly die .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using a well established vendor software (like say windows), means it's easier (cheaper) to educate people in the software they'll be using, and similarly easier to find qualified support (in house and outsourced alike).wait, what?
how the hell can you say that with a straight face?
I don't have Microsoft coming out here to train my people.
I don't have MSFT offering training classes.
Hell they wont even support it without a credit card number.I get BETTER support from redhat than I ever got from microsoft.
In fact I have a larger pool of educational materials and peer support with our linux servers than I ever had with microsoft products.Microsoft gives you support if you are willing to pay through the nose.
They drag out all their help to make sure they charge a lot of hours.
I have never had a problem even a complex SQL server problem that the OSS support companies I have dealt with did not solve in a very quick manner.Compared to a MSSQL server issue that microsoft took 40 billed hours to solve, that was a problem they discovered 6 hours in but ignored it.
(8 processor SQL server with 64 gig ram and a 3TB raid 50 array in 2004, this was big iron... and it was a BUG in MSSQL Enterprise edition, MSSQL  large amount of ram caused a memory leak that makes the server slowly die.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098584</id>
	<title>Re:Do this guys know the definition of user lock-i</title>
	<author>Nazlfrag</author>
	<datestamp>1265898480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's simple. Every government department anywhere wants to increase their budget, not reduce it. Reduction of the budget could mean their arse on the line instead of the cushy slackarse gravy train they are currently leeching from. The lockin vendors know and exploit this, resulting in this sort of shithouse attempt at oversight. There is no solution as politicians are corrupt by nature, so all we can hope to do is stick it to them every now and then. They deserve a good sticking for this lame attempt but really nothing will come to change their cowardice and ignorance so you may as well enjoy a good drink.</p><p>Bottoms up!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's simple .
Every government department anywhere wants to increase their budget , not reduce it .
Reduction of the budget could mean their arse on the line instead of the cushy slackarse gravy train they are currently leeching from .
The lockin vendors know and exploit this , resulting in this sort of shithouse attempt at oversight .
There is no solution as politicians are corrupt by nature , so all we can hope to do is stick it to them every now and then .
They deserve a good sticking for this lame attempt but really nothing will come to change their cowardice and ignorance so you may as well enjoy a good drink.Bottoms up !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's simple.
Every government department anywhere wants to increase their budget, not reduce it.
Reduction of the budget could mean their arse on the line instead of the cushy slackarse gravy train they are currently leeching from.
The lockin vendors know and exploit this, resulting in this sort of shithouse attempt at oversight.
There is no solution as politicians are corrupt by nature, so all we can hope to do is stick it to them every now and then.
They deserve a good sticking for this lame attempt but really nothing will come to change their cowardice and ignorance so you may as well enjoy a good drink.Bottoms up!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31103904</id>
	<title>What Computer Science is really about</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1265878920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>they actually funded real Unix CS.</p></div><p>Don't get me wrong, I love unix (despite its warts, and it has its shares), *deep breath* but...</p><p>Computer Science isn't about any particular OS.  CS is about algorithms, not java.util.Collection.sort.  It's about relational algebra, not MySQL.  It's about automata theory, not grep or sed.  It's about context-free grammars, type checking, name ambiguity resolution, Rice's theorem and all the other goodies that go into compilers, not about gcc.</p><p>Yes, a lot of people study a science because they wanted to learn a craft.  A lot of them are better craftsmen for doing so, I'd guess---I know I am.  But the study is about the theoretical underpinnings of the craft, not about perfecting the craft itself.</p><p>(Unless of course you talk, if you will, about the craft of science; then you're really an apprentice studying at the science master's workplace)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>they actually funded real Unix CS.Do n't get me wrong , I love unix ( despite its warts , and it has its shares ) , * deep breath * but...Computer Science is n't about any particular OS .
CS is about algorithms , not java.util.Collection.sort .
It 's about relational algebra , not MySQL .
It 's about automata theory , not grep or sed .
It 's about context-free grammars , type checking , name ambiguity resolution , Rice 's theorem and all the other goodies that go into compilers , not about gcc.Yes , a lot of people study a science because they wanted to learn a craft .
A lot of them are better craftsmen for doing so , I 'd guess---I know I am .
But the study is about the theoretical underpinnings of the craft , not about perfecting the craft itself .
( Unless of course you talk , if you will , about the craft of science ; then you 're really an apprentice studying at the science master 's workplace )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>they actually funded real Unix CS.Don't get me wrong, I love unix (despite its warts, and it has its shares), *deep breath* but...Computer Science isn't about any particular OS.
CS is about algorithms, not java.util.Collection.sort.
It's about relational algebra, not MySQL.
It's about automata theory, not grep or sed.
It's about context-free grammars, type checking, name ambiguity resolution, Rice's theorem and all the other goodies that go into compilers, not about gcc.Yes, a lot of people study a science because they wanted to learn a craft.
A lot of them are better craftsmen for doing so, I'd guess---I know I am.
But the study is about the theoretical underpinnings of the craft, not about perfecting the craft itself.
(Unless of course you talk, if you will, about the craft of science; then you're really an apprentice studying at the science master's workplace)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097902</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100038</id>
	<title>Did I Read This Correctly?</title>
	<author>hduff</author>
	<datestamp>1265905980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>spokesperson Graham Fry said. 'If the cost of assessing it [open source] was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice.'"</p></div><p>I realize this a government spokesperson and I am not a native Australian English speaker, but WTF?</p><p>So if the software costs AU$5,000,000,000 you don't have to think about it because the cost of assessing it is so small in comparison? </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>spokesperson Graham Fry said .
'If the cost of assessing it [ open source ] was greater than the cost of the software , you would have to think twice .
' " I realize this a government spokesperson and I am not a native Australian English speaker , but WTF ? So if the software costs AU $ 5,000,000,000 you do n't have to think about it because the cost of assessing it is so small in comparison ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>spokesperson Graham Fry said.
'If the cost of assessing it [open source] was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice.
'"I realize this a government spokesperson and I am not a native Australian English speaker, but WTF?So if the software costs AU$5,000,000,000 you don't have to think about it because the cost of assessing it is so small in comparison? 
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097902</id>
	<title>Whats interesting</title>
	<author>AHuxley</author>
	<datestamp>1265890380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is that most CS talent in Australia *should* be classical Unix, the Darl SCO kind ready.<br>
Australia did not just print out MS CS degrees, they actually funded real Unix CS.<br>
We like our mini military-industrial complex and did fund some maths/CS aspects of our top educational institutions.<br>
So where is the brain *gap* ?  We do not have a bunch of xbox playing cubical chumps running our<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov.<br>
Someone fixed something with this.<br>
As someone in Australia did with Saddam Hussein and wheat, Australia can do with software and Redmond.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is that most CS talent in Australia * should * be classical Unix , the Darl SCO kind ready .
Australia did not just print out MS CS degrees , they actually funded real Unix CS .
We like our mini military-industrial complex and did fund some maths/CS aspects of our top educational institutions .
So where is the brain * gap * ?
We do not have a bunch of xbox playing cubical chumps running our .gov .
Someone fixed something with this .
As someone in Australia did with Saddam Hussein and wheat , Australia can do with software and Redmond .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is that most CS talent in Australia *should* be classical Unix, the Darl SCO kind ready.
Australia did not just print out MS CS degrees, they actually funded real Unix CS.
We like our mini military-industrial complex and did fund some maths/CS aspects of our top educational institutions.
So where is the brain *gap* ?
We do not have a bunch of xbox playing cubical chumps running our .gov.
Someone fixed something with this.
As someone in Australia did with Saddam Hussein and wheat, Australia can do with software and Redmond.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31103134</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly true for CAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265919180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about things like group policy?  I'm not saying I disagree as much as trying to make sure its an apples to apples comparison.</p><p>I used to work for a Windows, *nix (Linux, Solaris, Iris, and Aix), and Mac shop and the place where we really struggled was it was really easy to do locked down installs on the *nix side, but making configuration changes wasn't the easiest.  Over time, things like puppet made that easier.  If we wanted to run Window authenticating directly against the *nix infrastructure, however, we lost too much in terms of the central management of the Windows machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about things like group policy ?
I 'm not saying I disagree as much as trying to make sure its an apples to apples comparison.I used to work for a Windows , * nix ( Linux , Solaris , Iris , and Aix ) , and Mac shop and the place where we really struggled was it was really easy to do locked down installs on the * nix side , but making configuration changes was n't the easiest .
Over time , things like puppet made that easier .
If we wanted to run Window authenticating directly against the * nix infrastructure , however , we lost too much in terms of the central management of the Windows machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about things like group policy?
I'm not saying I disagree as much as trying to make sure its an apples to apples comparison.I used to work for a Windows, *nix (Linux, Solaris, Iris, and Aix), and Mac shop and the place where we really struggled was it was really easy to do locked down installs on the *nix side, but making configuration changes wasn't the easiest.
Over time, things like puppet made that easier.
If we wanted to run Window authenticating directly against the *nix infrastructure, however, we lost too much in terms of the central management of the Windows machine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098328</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>eulernet</author>
	<datestamp>1265896140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got (or for a new installation, choose the same as everyone else) and pay a lot of licensefees, than to change to something that's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.</p></div><p>With Windows, you have to pay for license fees, and you have to pay every ten years (and I suppose that their next OS will have much smaller lifespan).</p><p>Either for Windows or Linux, you'll have a lot of hidden costs.<br>For Linux, it may be the users needing to be trained once, or the cost of a team for managing your computers.<br>For Windows, you'll need an antivirus if you don't want to spend your time reinstalling the computers, you'll have to renew all your licenses every few years, and train your users after every new version since Office will probably change its interface in the next version (to be 'easier' for the users). Maybe you'll be able to use a smaller team to manage your computers, but in my experience, administrators did a pretty awful job on Windows, except when they stopped changing the configurations.</p><p>I think what is important is not the amount of money you'll save in the short term, but in the long term.</p><p>It may be expensive to train the users at first, but if your computers are never upgraded (and have no virus problems), it will save you a lot of money.<br>On the contrary, if you always need the latest versions, it's obvious that it will cost you a lot of money.</p><p>My perception is that corporate companies don't really need all the latest features of Office.<br>People want to be able to build nice presentations, use preformatted documents or send emails, I think you can find these tools on Linux as well.</p><p>If you really need Windows, for example for Exchange, it's better to only buy them as servers, since qualified people will be less likely to mess them.</p><p>My motto is:<br>Don't buy it if you don't need it !</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So for a long term saving , it 's often cheaper to stay with what you 've got ( or for a new installation , choose the same as everyone else ) and pay a lot of licensefees , than to change to something that 's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.With Windows , you have to pay for license fees , and you have to pay every ten years ( and I suppose that their next OS will have much smaller lifespan ) .Either for Windows or Linux , you 'll have a lot of hidden costs.For Linux , it may be the users needing to be trained once , or the cost of a team for managing your computers.For Windows , you 'll need an antivirus if you do n't want to spend your time reinstalling the computers , you 'll have to renew all your licenses every few years , and train your users after every new version since Office will probably change its interface in the next version ( to be 'easier ' for the users ) .
Maybe you 'll be able to use a smaller team to manage your computers , but in my experience , administrators did a pretty awful job on Windows , except when they stopped changing the configurations.I think what is important is not the amount of money you 'll save in the short term , but in the long term.It may be expensive to train the users at first , but if your computers are never upgraded ( and have no virus problems ) , it will save you a lot of money.On the contrary , if you always need the latest versions , it 's obvious that it will cost you a lot of money.My perception is that corporate companies do n't really need all the latest features of Office.People want to be able to build nice presentations , use preformatted documents or send emails , I think you can find these tools on Linux as well.If you really need Windows , for example for Exchange , it 's better to only buy them as servers , since qualified people will be less likely to mess them.My motto is : Do n't buy it if you do n't need it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got (or for a new installation, choose the same as everyone else) and pay a lot of licensefees, than to change to something that's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.With Windows, you have to pay for license fees, and you have to pay every ten years (and I suppose that their next OS will have much smaller lifespan).Either for Windows or Linux, you'll have a lot of hidden costs.For Linux, it may be the users needing to be trained once, or the cost of a team for managing your computers.For Windows, you'll need an antivirus if you don't want to spend your time reinstalling the computers, you'll have to renew all your licenses every few years, and train your users after every new version since Office will probably change its interface in the next version (to be 'easier' for the users).
Maybe you'll be able to use a smaller team to manage your computers, but in my experience, administrators did a pretty awful job on Windows, except when they stopped changing the configurations.I think what is important is not the amount of money you'll save in the short term, but in the long term.It may be expensive to train the users at first, but if your computers are never upgraded (and have no virus problems), it will save you a lot of money.On the contrary, if you always need the latest versions, it's obvious that it will cost you a lot of money.My perception is that corporate companies don't really need all the latest features of Office.People want to be able to build nice presentations, use preformatted documents or send emails, I think you can find these tools on Linux as well.If you really need Windows, for example for Exchange, it's better to only buy them as servers, since qualified people will be less likely to mess them.My motto is:Don't buy it if you don't need it !
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097874</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>wrook</author>
	<datestamp>1265890080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm curious.  Who do you get for support for Microsoft products.  Does Microsoft offer support?  And by support I mean, if there is a bug in Word corrupting your mission critical documents, will they promise to fix it? And will they give you a projected time for completion on the work.  And will they give you periodic updates?  And will they send you a patched version as soon as it is fixed?  How much does that kind of support cost?  Are you sure it's really cheaper than an open source project?</p><p>And what happens when Microsoft "End-Of-Life"s a product?  Can you get support from a third party?  Can you develop internal resources to provide support and add small features?  Or do you have to simply buy whatever Microsoft replacing it with, regardless of whether or not it fits your needs?</p><p>And when you say that finding people able to do internal support (I assume first level support, since you can't really do anything else with proprietary software) is easier and cheaper with more popular software, isn't this simply a training issue?  Do you really have such a high turnover rate in your company that most of them were trained in using software at their previous job?  Or are most of them trained at your company, meaning that it doesn't matter if it's the most popular software or not -- It just matters that you can find initial training at a reasonable cost?</p><p>Certainly I think it's a good idea to get support for software you buy.  However, I have never worked at a proprietary company that offered anything resembling what I think of as support.  "Support" in the industry means get the off the phone as quickly as possible because every minute on the phone eats your entire profit.  Sure we did special one-off deals for customers who bought 10,000 copies of our software, but we gave them a bloody hard time of it.  If they didn't threaten to not upgrade to the next version, they wouldn't get anything at all.  We might fix their bug in the next service pack, or maybe not, at the whim of the program manager.</p><p>Real support, meaning having someone who is contractually obliged to help you when your software doesn't work for you only seems to be available for custom built software.  And if you aren't getting source with your custom built software, you're getting ripped off.</p><p>Or at least that's been my experience.  It would be interesting to see how your experience differs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm curious .
Who do you get for support for Microsoft products .
Does Microsoft offer support ?
And by support I mean , if there is a bug in Word corrupting your mission critical documents , will they promise to fix it ?
And will they give you a projected time for completion on the work .
And will they give you periodic updates ?
And will they send you a patched version as soon as it is fixed ?
How much does that kind of support cost ?
Are you sure it 's really cheaper than an open source project ? And what happens when Microsoft " End-Of-Life " s a product ?
Can you get support from a third party ?
Can you develop internal resources to provide support and add small features ?
Or do you have to simply buy whatever Microsoft replacing it with , regardless of whether or not it fits your needs ? And when you say that finding people able to do internal support ( I assume first level support , since you ca n't really do anything else with proprietary software ) is easier and cheaper with more popular software , is n't this simply a training issue ?
Do you really have such a high turnover rate in your company that most of them were trained in using software at their previous job ?
Or are most of them trained at your company , meaning that it does n't matter if it 's the most popular software or not -- It just matters that you can find initial training at a reasonable cost ? Certainly I think it 's a good idea to get support for software you buy .
However , I have never worked at a proprietary company that offered anything resembling what I think of as support .
" Support " in the industry means get the off the phone as quickly as possible because every minute on the phone eats your entire profit .
Sure we did special one-off deals for customers who bought 10,000 copies of our software , but we gave them a bloody hard time of it .
If they did n't threaten to not upgrade to the next version , they would n't get anything at all .
We might fix their bug in the next service pack , or maybe not , at the whim of the program manager.Real support , meaning having someone who is contractually obliged to help you when your software does n't work for you only seems to be available for custom built software .
And if you are n't getting source with your custom built software , you 're getting ripped off.Or at least that 's been my experience .
It would be interesting to see how your experience differs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm curious.
Who do you get for support for Microsoft products.
Does Microsoft offer support?
And by support I mean, if there is a bug in Word corrupting your mission critical documents, will they promise to fix it?
And will they give you a projected time for completion on the work.
And will they give you periodic updates?
And will they send you a patched version as soon as it is fixed?
How much does that kind of support cost?
Are you sure it's really cheaper than an open source project?And what happens when Microsoft "End-Of-Life"s a product?
Can you get support from a third party?
Can you develop internal resources to provide support and add small features?
Or do you have to simply buy whatever Microsoft replacing it with, regardless of whether or not it fits your needs?And when you say that finding people able to do internal support (I assume first level support, since you can't really do anything else with proprietary software) is easier and cheaper with more popular software, isn't this simply a training issue?
Do you really have such a high turnover rate in your company that most of them were trained in using software at their previous job?
Or are most of them trained at your company, meaning that it doesn't matter if it's the most popular software or not -- It just matters that you can find initial training at a reasonable cost?Certainly I think it's a good idea to get support for software you buy.
However, I have never worked at a proprietary company that offered anything resembling what I think of as support.
"Support" in the industry means get the off the phone as quickly as possible because every minute on the phone eats your entire profit.
Sure we did special one-off deals for customers who bought 10,000 copies of our software, but we gave them a bloody hard time of it.
If they didn't threaten to not upgrade to the next version, they wouldn't get anything at all.
We might fix their bug in the next service pack, or maybe not, at the whim of the program manager.Real support, meaning having someone who is contractually obliged to help you when your software doesn't work for you only seems to be available for custom built software.
And if you aren't getting source with your custom built software, you're getting ripped off.Or at least that's been my experience.
It would be interesting to see how your experience differs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098078</id>
	<title>Maybe it really IS too expensive to switch</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265892840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If Australia's government is anything like the US, there is a large number of low-paid support staff that are union members with seniority.  The main benefit of open source vs. Microsoft is requiring fewer people to support it.  The immediate savings in licenses is pretty much wiped out by conversion costs in the short run, but the real money is when you don't need so much support labor.  Somewhere, there are bureaucrats who see fewer vendor perks, fewer warm bodies to supervise, and a shrinking fiefdom.  But if the body count and the fiefdom have to be protected at all cost, there really will be no savings.  The bureaucracy can outmaneuver the legislature, every day of the week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If Australia 's government is anything like the US , there is a large number of low-paid support staff that are union members with seniority .
The main benefit of open source vs. Microsoft is requiring fewer people to support it .
The immediate savings in licenses is pretty much wiped out by conversion costs in the short run , but the real money is when you do n't need so much support labor .
Somewhere , there are bureaucrats who see fewer vendor perks , fewer warm bodies to supervise , and a shrinking fiefdom .
But if the body count and the fiefdom have to be protected at all cost , there really will be no savings .
The bureaucracy can outmaneuver the legislature , every day of the week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If Australia's government is anything like the US, there is a large number of low-paid support staff that are union members with seniority.
The main benefit of open source vs. Microsoft is requiring fewer people to support it.
The immediate savings in licenses is pretty much wiped out by conversion costs in the short run, but the real money is when you don't need so much support labor.
Somewhere, there are bureaucrats who see fewer vendor perks, fewer warm bodies to supervise, and a shrinking fiefdom.
But if the body count and the fiefdom have to be protected at all cost, there really will be no savings.
The bureaucracy can outmaneuver the legislature, every day of the week.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098386</id>
	<title>This is a very good point</title>
	<author>davidwr</author>
	<datestamp>1265896680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure many companies can tell you how much it costs to "upgrade" from XP to Vista. *sarcasm*</p><p>On the other hand, the cost of upgrading from Vista to 7 was probably a net positive at any price. *cue rim shot*</p><p>--<br>The value proposition of open source vs. closed source is not just dollars, it is freedom.  Sometimes this is hard to quantify.</p><p>Even ignoring the qualitative values of freedom, there are purely business reasons to prefer open source:  freedom from vendor bankruptcy, freedom from product orphanage or abandonment, freedom to hire a 3rd party or in-house developers to add "core" features even without vendor cooperation, freedom to choose who to hire for support, freedom from "forced upgrades" due to vendor end-of-life, freedom to audit the code for errors, and more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure many companies can tell you how much it costs to " upgrade " from XP to Vista .
* sarcasm * On the other hand , the cost of upgrading from Vista to 7 was probably a net positive at any price .
* cue rim shot * --The value proposition of open source vs. closed source is not just dollars , it is freedom .
Sometimes this is hard to quantify.Even ignoring the qualitative values of freedom , there are purely business reasons to prefer open source : freedom from vendor bankruptcy , freedom from product orphanage or abandonment , freedom to hire a 3rd party or in-house developers to add " core " features even without vendor cooperation , freedom to choose who to hire for support , freedom from " forced upgrades " due to vendor end-of-life , freedom to audit the code for errors , and more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure many companies can tell you how much it costs to "upgrade" from XP to Vista.
*sarcasm*On the other hand, the cost of upgrading from Vista to 7 was probably a net positive at any price.
*cue rim shot*--The value proposition of open source vs. closed source is not just dollars, it is freedom.
Sometimes this is hard to quantify.Even ignoring the qualitative values of freedom, there are purely business reasons to prefer open source:  freedom from vendor bankruptcy, freedom from product orphanage or abandonment, freedom to hire a 3rd party or in-house developers to add "core" features even without vendor cooperation, freedom to choose who to hire for support, freedom from "forced upgrades" due to vendor end-of-life, freedom to audit the code for errors, and more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098746</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265899500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>are you really trying to say that for every commercial application that exists, open source is the optimal solution?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>are you really trying to say that for every commercial application that exists , open source is the optimal solution ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>are you really trying to say that for every commercial application that exists, open source is the optimal solution?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100802</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly true for CAD</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265909460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok - my question is what does it really cost? Take a large office (say 5000 desk tops &amp; server support) in any city.<br>what would a systematic and direct comparison look like?</p><p>Set thing up such that 95\% of all machines are *nix with the rest windows. Use as much open source<br>as possible. say things like OpenOffice.org, thunderbird, firefox, and apache 2.0. All new development<br>with open source with open standards. How many Windows machines are an absolute must? How many copies<br>of that CAD system do you need?</p><p>Do all of this on a per year per item basis.</p><p>Fight like dogs about details.</p><p>Add up the columns.</p><p>rejoice!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok - my question is what does it really cost ?
Take a large office ( say 5000 desk tops &amp; server support ) in any city.what would a systematic and direct comparison look like ? Set thing up such that 95 \ % of all machines are * nix with the rest windows .
Use as much open sourceas possible .
say things like OpenOffice.org , thunderbird , firefox , and apache 2.0 .
All new developmentwith open source with open standards .
How many Windows machines are an absolute must ?
How many copiesof that CAD system do you need ? Do all of this on a per year per item basis.Fight like dogs about details.Add up the columns.rejoice !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok - my question is what does it really cost?
Take a large office (say 5000 desk tops &amp; server support) in any city.what would a systematic and direct comparison look like?Set thing up such that 95\% of all machines are *nix with the rest windows.
Use as much open sourceas possible.
say things like OpenOffice.org, thunderbird, firefox, and apache 2.0.
All new developmentwith open source with open standards.
How many Windows machines are an absolute must?
How many copiesof that CAD system do you need?Do all of this on a per year per item basis.Fight like dogs about details.Add up the columns.rejoice!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099048</id>
	<title>Australian Economics Lesson</title>
	<author>LifesABeach</author>
	<datestamp>1265900940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Given:<br>
1. M$ cost &gt; $400(U.S.)<br>
2. openOffice cost equal $0(U.S.)<br>
<br>
Prove: M$ cost 
<br>
Given:<br>
  Statement<br>
    "the cost of a platform change"<br>
  Why<br>
    Australian Government Information Management Office says so.<br>
<br>
  Statement<br>
    openOffice on Windows is a "Big Lie"<br>
  Why<br>
    Oh, I don't know, maybe someone that works for Microsoft said so?<br>
<br>
Conclusion:<br>
Buy Microsoft, it's for the Children.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given : 1 .
M $ cost &gt; $ 400 ( U.S. ) 2. openOffice cost equal $ 0 ( U.S. ) Prove : M $ cost Given : Statement " the cost of a platform change " Why Australian Government Information Management Office says so .
Statement openOffice on Windows is a " Big Lie " Why Oh , I do n't know , maybe someone that works for Microsoft said so ?
Conclusion : Buy Microsoft , it 's for the Children .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given:
1.
M$ cost &gt; $400(U.S.)
2. openOffice cost equal $0(U.S.)

Prove: M$ cost 

Given:
  Statement
    "the cost of a platform change"
  Why
    Australian Government Information Management Office says so.
Statement
    openOffice on Windows is a "Big Lie"
  Why
    Oh, I don't know, maybe someone that works for Microsoft said so?
Conclusion:
Buy Microsoft, it's for the Children.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099200</id>
	<title>Big bang or softly softly</title>
	<author>Alain Williams</author>
	<datestamp>1265901840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People seem to assume that things are either one thing or the other; today we run this OS, tomorrow we run something else. That way is horribly expensive and is doomed to failure.
<p>
A saner approach is to plan migration over several years:
</p><ul>
<li>Ensure that all infrastructure will play nicely with the current proprietary applications and the chosen FLOSS replacements -- this means making sure that they obey the appropriate standards and use well defined document standards</li>
<li>Mandate that all new server s/ware, in house or bought in, has to work to standards, ie is  agnostic to desktop operating system</li>
<li>Where desktop s/ware is needed: urge that the next version work through the browser (this makes deployment much cheaper anyway); if something <b>really is</b> OS dependent - make them justify it</li> <li>Mandate that all new s/ware be fully specified: file formats and wire protocols, so that someone could write something compatible -- publish these specs freely</li>
<li>Put FLOSS applications on the existing desktops: firefox, OoO, thunderbird would make a good start.</li>
<li>When PCs come up for renewal, inspect what the user does with the PC; more 80\% you will find that all that they do is managed by the existing FLOSS apps that you put on their desktops already;
for them give them a Linux based box; for the other 20\% give them what they need to run whatever apps.</li>
</ul><p>
This will, over 5 years, give you 80\% of desktops and most servers running FLOSS. The remaining 20\% may stay around for a long time - it doesn't matter, you still get the savings from the 80\%. Yes the cost of heterogeneous systems is initially a little higher than just staying with MS, but the sysadmins will be come skilled at it and costs will drop.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People seem to assume that things are either one thing or the other ; today we run this OS , tomorrow we run something else .
That way is horribly expensive and is doomed to failure .
A saner approach is to plan migration over several years : Ensure that all infrastructure will play nicely with the current proprietary applications and the chosen FLOSS replacements -- this means making sure that they obey the appropriate standards and use well defined document standards Mandate that all new server s/ware , in house or bought in , has to work to standards , ie is agnostic to desktop operating system Where desktop s/ware is needed : urge that the next version work through the browser ( this makes deployment much cheaper anyway ) ; if something really is OS dependent - make them justify it Mandate that all new s/ware be fully specified : file formats and wire protocols , so that someone could write something compatible -- publish these specs freely Put FLOSS applications on the existing desktops : firefox , OoO , thunderbird would make a good start .
When PCs come up for renewal , inspect what the user does with the PC ; more 80 \ % you will find that all that they do is managed by the existing FLOSS apps that you put on their desktops already ; for them give them a Linux based box ; for the other 20 \ % give them what they need to run whatever apps .
This will , over 5 years , give you 80 \ % of desktops and most servers running FLOSS .
The remaining 20 \ % may stay around for a long time - it does n't matter , you still get the savings from the 80 \ % .
Yes the cost of heterogeneous systems is initially a little higher than just staying with MS , but the sysadmins will be come skilled at it and costs will drop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People seem to assume that things are either one thing or the other; today we run this OS, tomorrow we run something else.
That way is horribly expensive and is doomed to failure.
A saner approach is to plan migration over several years:

Ensure that all infrastructure will play nicely with the current proprietary applications and the chosen FLOSS replacements -- this means making sure that they obey the appropriate standards and use well defined document standards
Mandate that all new server s/ware, in house or bought in, has to work to standards, ie is  agnostic to desktop operating system
Where desktop s/ware is needed: urge that the next version work through the browser (this makes deployment much cheaper anyway); if something really is OS dependent - make them justify it Mandate that all new s/ware be fully specified: file formats and wire protocols, so that someone could write something compatible -- publish these specs freely
Put FLOSS applications on the existing desktops: firefox, OoO, thunderbird would make a good start.
When PCs come up for renewal, inspect what the user does with the PC; more 80\% you will find that all that they do is managed by the existing FLOSS apps that you put on their desktops already;
for them give them a Linux based box; for the other 20\% give them what they need to run whatever apps.
This will, over 5 years, give you 80\% of desktops and most servers running FLOSS.
The remaining 20\% may stay around for a long time - it doesn't matter, you still get the savings from the 80\%.
Yes the cost of heterogeneous systems is initially a little higher than just staying with MS, but the sysadmins will be come skilled at it and costs will drop.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098188</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265894460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Platform change with proprietary software is FORCED<br>Platform change with open source depends on hardware<br>Better switch ASAP. Bureaucrat is spewing BS.</p><p>I run ext4 with the '98 era PC. Can you access the latest win7 data with a windows 98 PC? EOD</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Platform change with proprietary software is FORCEDPlatform change with open source depends on hardwareBetter switch ASAP .
Bureaucrat is spewing BS.I run ext4 with the '98 era PC .
Can you access the latest win7 data with a windows 98 PC ?
EOD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Platform change with proprietary software is FORCEDPlatform change with open source depends on hardwareBetter switch ASAP.
Bureaucrat is spewing BS.I run ext4 with the '98 era PC.
Can you access the latest win7 data with a windows 98 PC?
EOD</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098418</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265896980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Read Sycroft's comment above you, there are absolutely some situations where OSS is not cost-effective, from either a short-term or long-term perspective. And while you make accusations of someone being a Microsoft astroturfer, know that you're little better as a typical Slashdotter who plugs their ears and sings, "La, la, la, I can't hear you! You must be an MS shill!" whenever someone makes valid criticisms of open-source from a business standpoint.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Read Sycroft 's comment above you , there are absolutely some situations where OSS is not cost-effective , from either a short-term or long-term perspective .
And while you make accusations of someone being a Microsoft astroturfer , know that you 're little better as a typical Slashdotter who plugs their ears and sings , " La , la , la , I ca n't hear you !
You must be an MS shill !
" whenever someone makes valid criticisms of open-source from a business standpoint .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Read Sycroft's comment above you, there are absolutely some situations where OSS is not cost-effective, from either a short-term or long-term perspective.
And while you make accusations of someone being a Microsoft astroturfer, know that you're little better as a typical Slashdotter who plugs their ears and sings, "La, la, la, I can't hear you!
You must be an MS shill!
" whenever someone makes valid criticisms of open-source from a business standpoint.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140</id>
	<title>Graham Fry = idiot</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1265893800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"If the cost of assessing it [open source] was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice."</p><p>Newsflash Mr Fry - if you're using free software that's what you'd expect. Since when did zero multiplied by anything become a number?</p><p>Imbecile.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" If the cost of assessing it [ open source ] was greater than the cost of the software , you would have to think twice .
" Newsflash Mr Fry - if you 're using free software that 's what you 'd expect .
Since when did zero multiplied by anything become a number ? Imbecile .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"If the cost of assessing it [open source] was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice.
"Newsflash Mr Fry - if you're using free software that's what you'd expect.
Since when did zero multiplied by anything become a number?Imbecile.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098230</id>
	<title>Meh, no money saved.</title>
	<author>zmollusc</author>
	<datestamp>1265895060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like to see open source used more, but it won't save taxpayers money.<br>If the government has a billion pounds in tax money and spends &pound;500 million on Microsoft Office and &pound;500 million on limos, coke, whores and personal swiss bank accounts, what will happen if they ditch MS Office and get free software?</p><p>a) They reduce tax by &pound;500 million.<br>b) They reduce tax by more than &pound;500 million by also paying back the money they embezzled.<br>c) They spend &pound;1 billion on limos, coke, whores and personal swiss bank accounts.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like to see open source used more , but it wo n't save taxpayers money.If the government has a billion pounds in tax money and spends   500 million on Microsoft Office and   500 million on limos , coke , whores and personal swiss bank accounts , what will happen if they ditch MS Office and get free software ? a ) They reduce tax by   500 million.b ) They reduce tax by more than   500 million by also paying back the money they embezzled.c ) They spend   1 billion on limos , coke , whores and personal swiss bank accounts .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like to see open source used more, but it won't save taxpayers money.If the government has a billion pounds in tax money and spends £500 million on Microsoft Office and £500 million on limos, coke, whores and personal swiss bank accounts, what will happen if they ditch MS Office and get free software?a) They reduce tax by £500 million.b) They reduce tax by more than £500 million by also paying back the money they embezzled.c) They spend £1 billion on limos, coke, whores and personal swiss bank accounts.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101070</id>
	<title>Not entirely unreasonable ...</title>
	<author>Rambo Tribble</author>
	<datestamp>1265911080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... just mostly so. In the case of highly customized proprietary programs it can cost more to "reinvent the wheel" by replicating their function in Open Source, vendor lock-in notwithstanding. For the vast majority of mainstream applications, however, this argument is specious to adherents of the status quo, but fallacious, nonetheless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... just mostly so .
In the case of highly customized proprietary programs it can cost more to " reinvent the wheel " by replicating their function in Open Source , vendor lock-in notwithstanding .
For the vast majority of mainstream applications , however , this argument is specious to adherents of the status quo , but fallacious , nonetheless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... just mostly so.
In the case of highly customized proprietary programs it can cost more to "reinvent the wheel" by replicating their function in Open Source, vendor lock-in notwithstanding.
For the vast majority of mainstream applications, however, this argument is specious to adherents of the status quo, but fallacious, nonetheless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098524</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265897880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.</p></div><p>Proof please. Suppose I use Solidworks to create products which I sell. The product is what I care about. How does opensource solve my problem in a *cheaper* way? Or even in an equal cost way? Hint - it does not.</p><p>Use the right tool for the job. Sometimes Windows is the right platform, and it is cheaper for some problems. If you cannot see this then you need to reexamine your assumptions.</p><p>In short, you are provably incorrect.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>In the long term it 's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor 's lock-in.Proof please .
Suppose I use Solidworks to create products which I sell .
The product is what I care about .
How does opensource solve my problem in a * cheaper * way ?
Or even in an equal cost way ?
Hint - it does not.Use the right tool for the job .
Sometimes Windows is the right platform , and it is cheaper for some problems .
If you can not see this then you need to reexamine your assumptions.In short , you are provably incorrect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.Proof please.
Suppose I use Solidworks to create products which I sell.
The product is what I care about.
How does opensource solve my problem in a *cheaper* way?
Or even in an equal cost way?
Hint - it does not.Use the right tool for the job.
Sometimes Windows is the right platform, and it is cheaper for some problems.
If you cannot see this then you need to reexamine your assumptions.In short, you are provably incorrect.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098488</id>
	<title>Brainstorming Session Needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265897700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Quick! How do we blame Microsoft for this?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Quick !
How do we blame Microsoft for this ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Quick!
How do we blame Microsoft for this?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098266</id>
	<title>this is correct</title>
	<author>Atreide</author>
	<datestamp>1265895420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>a few days back this have been prooved to be correct</p><p>people using accessibility of the GNOME desktop contributed by Sun will have to change (Orca screen reader, a project led by Sun's Accessibility Program Office). Killed by Oracle.<br>"the accessibility of the GNOME desktop will become the open source equivalent of an unfunded mandate, doomed ultimately to fail."<br><a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/09/0024241/Oracle-Drops-Suns-Commitment-To-Accessibility" title="slashdot.org">http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/09/0024241/Oracle-Drops-Suns-Commitment-To-Accessibility</a> [slashdot.org]</p><p>Now they have to migrate to Oracle Product.<br>"Oracle is committed to creating accessible technologies and products that enhance the overall workplace environment"<br><a href="http://www.oracle.com/accessibility/index.html" title="oracle.com">http://www.oracle.com/accessibility/index.html</a> [oracle.com]</p><p>This sure is too costly to work with open source.<br>Cost of change for these users will be high.<br>They would have better commit to closed source solutions such as Oracle in first place.</p><p>After all it is very well known that companies never kill their product line and have stable roadmaps.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a few days back this have been prooved to be correctpeople using accessibility of the GNOME desktop contributed by Sun will have to change ( Orca screen reader , a project led by Sun 's Accessibility Program Office ) .
Killed by Oracle .
" the accessibility of the GNOME desktop will become the open source equivalent of an unfunded mandate , doomed ultimately to fail .
" http : //news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/09/0024241/Oracle-Drops-Suns-Commitment-To-Accessibility [ slashdot.org ] Now they have to migrate to Oracle Product .
" Oracle is committed to creating accessible technologies and products that enhance the overall workplace environment " http : //www.oracle.com/accessibility/index.html [ oracle.com ] This sure is too costly to work with open source.Cost of change for these users will be high.They would have better commit to closed source solutions such as Oracle in first place.After all it is very well known that companies never kill their product line and have stable roadmaps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>a few days back this have been prooved to be correctpeople using accessibility of the GNOME desktop contributed by Sun will have to change (Orca screen reader, a project led by Sun's Accessibility Program Office).
Killed by Oracle.
"the accessibility of the GNOME desktop will become the open source equivalent of an unfunded mandate, doomed ultimately to fail.
"http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/02/09/0024241/Oracle-Drops-Suns-Commitment-To-Accessibility [slashdot.org]Now they have to migrate to Oracle Product.
"Oracle is committed to creating accessible technologies and products that enhance the overall workplace environment"http://www.oracle.com/accessibility/index.html [oracle.com]This sure is too costly to work with open source.Cost of change for these users will be high.They would have better commit to closed source solutions such as Oracle in first place.After all it is very well known that companies never kill their product line and have stable roadmaps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31109150</id>
	<title>Locked in from the beginning</title>
	<author>UK Boz</author>
	<datestamp>1265905560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Lets face it, the *problem* starts right from the start of the education system with cheap educational office licences.

My daughter came home a few months ago and told me the teacher says she had to have microsoft office on her home computer.. Makes me F***** mad.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Lets face it , the * problem * starts right from the start of the education system with cheap educational office licences .
My daughter came home a few months ago and told me the teacher says she had to have microsoft office on her home computer.. Makes me F * * * * * mad .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Lets face it, the *problem* starts right from the start of the education system with cheap educational office licences.
My daughter came home a few months ago and told me the teacher says she had to have microsoft office on her home computer.. Makes me F***** mad.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099124</id>
	<title>Re:an interesting thread, but...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265901360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That Access database could be changed to use linked tables.  The back-end could be free open source software (MySQL or other).  This is a very reliable setup.</p><p>I've never seen an Access database with that many users using Access tables that didn't crash and burn on a regular basis.</p><p>True there isn't a good front-end replacement.  Something like that is too much headache to work on for free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That Access database could be changed to use linked tables .
The back-end could be free open source software ( MySQL or other ) .
This is a very reliable setup.I 've never seen an Access database with that many users using Access tables that did n't crash and burn on a regular basis.True there is n't a good front-end replacement .
Something like that is too much headache to work on for free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That Access database could be changed to use linked tables.
The back-end could be free open source software (MySQL or other).
This is a very reliable setup.I've never seen an Access database with that many users using Access tables that didn't crash and burn on a regular basis.True there isn't a good front-end replacement.
Something like that is too much headache to work on for free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098636</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>ckaminski</author>
	<datestamp>1265898840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>7 people?  That's a lot more than a small project - full time that could be the entire team behind SugarCRM.<br><br>And if it's a project that's mostly done but needs a few upgrades or improvements here or there, nothing saying you couldn't get some college interns at $30K a year to do it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>7 people ?
That 's a lot more than a small project - full time that could be the entire team behind SugarCRM.And if it 's a project that 's mostly done but needs a few upgrades or improvements here or there , nothing saying you could n't get some college interns at $ 30K a year to do it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>7 people?
That's a lot more than a small project - full time that could be the entire team behind SugarCRM.And if it's a project that's mostly done but needs a few upgrades or improvements here or there, nothing saying you couldn't get some college interns at $30K a year to do it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098612</id>
	<title>There are no hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>betterunixthanunix</author>
	<datestamp>1265898720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yes, in the industry, people know all of your points, and this is what they know about them:<ol>
<li>Red Hat's prices are cheap.  Really, really cheap.  This is why Red Hat has such impressive results during recessions; take a look at their earnings over the past 18 months if you are interested.</li><li>GNU, Linux, Apache, BIND, and dozens of other systems are well established and have been around for a very long time.</li><li>Which is why people like me speak of free as in free speech, not free beer.  Red Hat's model of selling RHEL along with selling support contracts is perfectly fine, and companies are saving money with it.  Likewise with Novell SLES and Mandriva.</li><li>The lifecycle of RHEL is well documented, guaranteed, and when RHEL reaches EOL, Red Hat will upgrade your systems to a more recent version as part of your support contract.</li><li>Only niche markets lack in libre software, and while those cases are unfortunate, they are a fact of life.  In many of those cases, the vendor has released a binary for a libre operating system, because it is so common for their customers to be running one.</li></ol><p>

So in the end, the "hidden costs" really do not exist.  Sure, I am just some random grad student, but perhaps you can ask the dozens of Fortune 500 companies that rely on Linux and Apache in their server rooms what sort of hidden costs they are encountering and why they are sticking with libre software under the conditions you described.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , in the industry , people know all of your points , and this is what they know about them : Red Hat 's prices are cheap .
Really , really cheap .
This is why Red Hat has such impressive results during recessions ; take a look at their earnings over the past 18 months if you are interested.GNU , Linux , Apache , BIND , and dozens of other systems are well established and have been around for a very long time.Which is why people like me speak of free as in free speech , not free beer .
Red Hat 's model of selling RHEL along with selling support contracts is perfectly fine , and companies are saving money with it .
Likewise with Novell SLES and Mandriva.The lifecycle of RHEL is well documented , guaranteed , and when RHEL reaches EOL , Red Hat will upgrade your systems to a more recent version as part of your support contract.Only niche markets lack in libre software , and while those cases are unfortunate , they are a fact of life .
In many of those cases , the vendor has released a binary for a libre operating system , because it is so common for their customers to be running one .
So in the end , the " hidden costs " really do not exist .
Sure , I am just some random grad student , but perhaps you can ask the dozens of Fortune 500 companies that rely on Linux and Apache in their server rooms what sort of hidden costs they are encountering and why they are sticking with libre software under the conditions you described .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, in the industry, people know all of your points, and this is what they know about them:
Red Hat's prices are cheap.
Really, really cheap.
This is why Red Hat has such impressive results during recessions; take a look at their earnings over the past 18 months if you are interested.GNU, Linux, Apache, BIND, and dozens of other systems are well established and have been around for a very long time.Which is why people like me speak of free as in free speech, not free beer.
Red Hat's model of selling RHEL along with selling support contracts is perfectly fine, and companies are saving money with it.
Likewise with Novell SLES and Mandriva.The lifecycle of RHEL is well documented, guaranteed, and when RHEL reaches EOL, Red Hat will upgrade your systems to a more recent version as part of your support contract.Only niche markets lack in libre software, and while those cases are unfortunate, they are a fact of life.
In many of those cases, the vendor has released a binary for a libre operating system, because it is so common for their customers to be running one.
So in the end, the "hidden costs" really do not exist.
Sure, I am just some random grad student, but perhaps you can ask the dozens of Fortune 500 companies that rely on Linux and Apache in their server rooms what sort of hidden costs they are encountering and why they are sticking with libre software under the conditions you described.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099012</id>
	<title>Re:Sadly true for CAD</title>
	<author>Alain Williams</author>
	<datestamp>1265900820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> I'm afraid that CAD isn't there yet.</p></div><p>But a big bang approach is wrong<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... you will always have applications that run best on platform X. So you pick the low hanging fruit - do the easy stuff first - most applications can run using FLOSS, so move them over - leave the rest running on whatever. What is wrong with heterogeneous systems ?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm afraid that CAD is n't there yet.But a big bang approach is wrong ... you will always have applications that run best on platform X. So you pick the low hanging fruit - do the easy stuff first - most applications can run using FLOSS , so move them over - leave the rest running on whatever .
What is wrong with heterogeneous systems ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> I'm afraid that CAD isn't there yet.But a big bang approach is wrong ... you will always have applications that run best on platform X. So you pick the low hanging fruit - do the easy stuff first - most applications can run using FLOSS, so move them over - leave the rest running on whatever.
What is wrong with heterogeneous systems ?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097922</id>
	<title>The difference in administrating systems</title>
	<author>plusser</author>
	<datestamp>1265890560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds like we have a difference in administration approach between open source and closed source software.</p><p>Open Source<br>- It's Free<br>- But if you want something special you will need specialists to write the software and test it for you - Cost lots<br>- You'll have to pay for your own training<br>- If you change your computers in future, chances are the software may still be able to be made to work</p><p>Closed Source<br>- It's expensive<br>- Carefully researched product - will probably meet the needs of your business without much tailoring<br>- Training will be provided as part of package<br>- If you change your system in future, chances are you will need to buy the latest version of the software at greater expensive</p><p>Options for legacy systems<br>- virtualisation or emulation - but both have their own administration costs</p><p>However, there is one factor that I haven't discussed yet, that is the attitude and stability of the software vendor.<br>- Some vendors write such highly specialised versions of software that they change little between versions.  If you are using such a system then is it probably worth risking the software being closed source.<br>- But some vendors want to maximise profit, so they will revise the software with short lifecycles and sometime be sneaky enough to remove commonly used features on more basic versions of the software, so that when you do upgrade you have to pay even more or change your processes around the lack of that particular feature.</p><p>The horrible truth is that IT companies have a habit of pulling wool of the eyes of governments.  This is partly due to the fact that the requirements are often vague and incomplete, but also due to the complexity that governments insist on without understand the consequences.  Fact is programming time is like any other engineering type function, it costs money.</p><p>With regard the the article, there is too little information to say whether the Australian Government have made the right choice.  However, if you want to base the information on the experience with UK government, chances are the politicians have made a complete hash of whatever decision they have made, because they when want a system to perform too many different functions without realising that they are trying for levels of efficiency that could never be achieved, cost more money and finally ending up with a system that doesn't work properly due to fundamental design structures.</p><p>Sometimes it is best not to try and implement a one size fits all policy, but too break parts down into their constituents and build systems on a more modular basis.  For example two departments may use software from different vendors and have to exchange data, with each other in a define way - the interface software could be open source based and maintained either by the company/organisation/government or a contractor.  However, there will be a point when you get to the lack of diminishing returns when trying too hard costs even more, at which point you implement risk management and move on.  The problem is that governments are full of people that think they "Know it All", but they in fact "Know everything about nothing" and don't understand when to stop arguing a case as they is no more benefit to what they are saying, obstructing proper process.</p><p>So to answer, Open Source or Closed Source - it depends on the application and how you understand the pitfalls.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds like we have a difference in administration approach between open source and closed source software.Open Source- It 's Free- But if you want something special you will need specialists to write the software and test it for you - Cost lots- You 'll have to pay for your own training- If you change your computers in future , chances are the software may still be able to be made to workClosed Source- It 's expensive- Carefully researched product - will probably meet the needs of your business without much tailoring- Training will be provided as part of package- If you change your system in future , chances are you will need to buy the latest version of the software at greater expensiveOptions for legacy systems- virtualisation or emulation - but both have their own administration costsHowever , there is one factor that I have n't discussed yet , that is the attitude and stability of the software vendor.- Some vendors write such highly specialised versions of software that they change little between versions .
If you are using such a system then is it probably worth risking the software being closed source.- But some vendors want to maximise profit , so they will revise the software with short lifecycles and sometime be sneaky enough to remove commonly used features on more basic versions of the software , so that when you do upgrade you have to pay even more or change your processes around the lack of that particular feature.The horrible truth is that IT companies have a habit of pulling wool of the eyes of governments .
This is partly due to the fact that the requirements are often vague and incomplete , but also due to the complexity that governments insist on without understand the consequences .
Fact is programming time is like any other engineering type function , it costs money.With regard the the article , there is too little information to say whether the Australian Government have made the right choice .
However , if you want to base the information on the experience with UK government , chances are the politicians have made a complete hash of whatever decision they have made , because they when want a system to perform too many different functions without realising that they are trying for levels of efficiency that could never be achieved , cost more money and finally ending up with a system that does n't work properly due to fundamental design structures.Sometimes it is best not to try and implement a one size fits all policy , but too break parts down into their constituents and build systems on a more modular basis .
For example two departments may use software from different vendors and have to exchange data , with each other in a define way - the interface software could be open source based and maintained either by the company/organisation/government or a contractor .
However , there will be a point when you get to the lack of diminishing returns when trying too hard costs even more , at which point you implement risk management and move on .
The problem is that governments are full of people that think they " Know it All " , but they in fact " Know everything about nothing " and do n't understand when to stop arguing a case as they is no more benefit to what they are saying , obstructing proper process.So to answer , Open Source or Closed Source - it depends on the application and how you understand the pitfalls .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds like we have a difference in administration approach between open source and closed source software.Open Source- It's Free- But if you want something special you will need specialists to write the software and test it for you - Cost lots- You'll have to pay for your own training- If you change your computers in future, chances are the software may still be able to be made to workClosed Source- It's expensive- Carefully researched product - will probably meet the needs of your business without much tailoring- Training will be provided as part of package- If you change your system in future, chances are you will need to buy the latest version of the software at greater expensiveOptions for legacy systems- virtualisation or emulation - but both have their own administration costsHowever, there is one factor that I haven't discussed yet, that is the attitude and stability of the software vendor.- Some vendors write such highly specialised versions of software that they change little between versions.
If you are using such a system then is it probably worth risking the software being closed source.- But some vendors want to maximise profit, so they will revise the software with short lifecycles and sometime be sneaky enough to remove commonly used features on more basic versions of the software, so that when you do upgrade you have to pay even more or change your processes around the lack of that particular feature.The horrible truth is that IT companies have a habit of pulling wool of the eyes of governments.
This is partly due to the fact that the requirements are often vague and incomplete, but also due to the complexity that governments insist on without understand the consequences.
Fact is programming time is like any other engineering type function, it costs money.With regard the the article, there is too little information to say whether the Australian Government have made the right choice.
However, if you want to base the information on the experience with UK government, chances are the politicians have made a complete hash of whatever decision they have made, because they when want a system to perform too many different functions without realising that they are trying for levels of efficiency that could never be achieved, cost more money and finally ending up with a system that doesn't work properly due to fundamental design structures.Sometimes it is best not to try and implement a one size fits all policy, but too break parts down into their constituents and build systems on a more modular basis.
For example two departments may use software from different vendors and have to exchange data, with each other in a define way - the interface software could be open source based and maintained either by the company/organisation/government or a contractor.
However, there will be a point when you get to the lack of diminishing returns when trying too hard costs even more, at which point you implement risk management and move on.
The problem is that governments are full of people that think they "Know it All", but they in fact "Know everything about nothing" and don't understand when to stop arguing a case as they is no more benefit to what they are saying, obstructing proper process.So to answer, Open Source or Closed Source - it depends on the application and how you understand the pitfalls.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31110642</id>
	<title>PostgreSQL is far cheaper than Oracle...</title>
	<author>Nivag064</author>
	<datestamp>1265968320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>PostgreSQL is also far superior to Access, plus it is faster and easier to use than MySQL (I have a client with MySQL).</htmltext>
<tokenext>PostgreSQL is also far superior to Access , plus it is faster and easier to use than MySQL ( I have a client with MySQL ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>PostgreSQL is also far superior to Access, plus it is faster and easier to use than MySQL (I have a client with MySQL).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098098</id>
	<title>Clearly they forgot to ask my department...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we're running Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server with Open Enterprise Server 2 as our core infrastructure, with a bunch of open-source services providing critical functionality to the entire department across all states. Sure, we pay for support, but in the three years I've been there we've used that support on a total of 7 occasions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we 're running Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server with Open Enterprise Server 2 as our core infrastructure , with a bunch of open-source services providing critical functionality to the entire department across all states .
Sure , we pay for support , but in the three years I 've been there we 've used that support on a total of 7 occasions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we're running Novell SUSE Linux Enterprise Server with Open Enterprise Server 2 as our core infrastructure, with a bunch of open-source services providing critical functionality to the entire department across all states.
Sure, we pay for support, but in the three years I've been there we've used that support on a total of 7 occasions.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097558</id>
	<title>Re:Do this guys know the definition of user lock-i</title>
	<author>Stuarticus</author>
	<datestamp>1265886900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext> Sorry, it's too expensive to even <i>assess</i> if there's any money to be saved by switching.

 Next item on the agenda, can we get some sort of magic machine that makes sure no-one is watching anything dirty in their computer?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , it 's too expensive to even assess if there 's any money to be saved by switching .
Next item on the agenda , can we get some sort of magic machine that makes sure no-one is watching anything dirty in their computer ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Sorry, it's too expensive to even assess if there's any money to be saved by switching.
Next item on the agenda, can we get some sort of magic machine that makes sure no-one is watching anything dirty in their computer?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097580</id>
	<title>Re:Do this guys know the definition of user lock-i</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265887080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Government only cares what happens in the present financial year, next year doesn't matter. If you don't spend your money in the current financial year, next year expect less budget.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Government only cares what happens in the present financial year , next year does n't matter .
If you do n't spend your money in the current financial year , next year expect less budget .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Government only cares what happens in the present financial year, next year doesn't matter.
If you don't spend your money in the current financial year, next year expect less budget.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</id>
	<title>Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>twisteddk</author>
	<datestamp>1265887620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What the very short article DOESN'T mention is what we in the industry have known for years:</p><p>1) A software LICENSE isn't always cheaper than software SUPPORT. And you DO need support for your platform, open source or not.</p><p>2) Using a well established vendor software (like say windows), means it's easier (cheaper) to educate people in the software they'll be using, and similarly easier to find qualified support (in house and outsourced alike).</p><p>3) Open source doesn't mean the software is FREE, it just means it is open source. Many companies supply the source code for review when they sell their software to customers.</p><p>4) The lifecycle of "well established" products is well documented (and generally very long lived), and may factor into the choice, as noone wants to scrap the software again in 3 years (and incur another switchover cost) when there's no longer any support for whatever you chose as your platform.</p><p>5) Techonologically, a lot of software just inst available as open source. You may be unable to find the software you need for your platform, thus again driving the costs up if you have to develop it yourself. Noone wants to be stuck with a legacy system for the next 15 years (again).</p><p>So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got (or for a new installation, choose the same as everyone else) and pay a lot of licensefees, than to change to something that's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.</p><p>That said, I LOVE linux, open source and free software. But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What the very short article DOES N'T mention is what we in the industry have known for years : 1 ) A software LICENSE is n't always cheaper than software SUPPORT .
And you DO need support for your platform , open source or not.2 ) Using a well established vendor software ( like say windows ) , means it 's easier ( cheaper ) to educate people in the software they 'll be using , and similarly easier to find qualified support ( in house and outsourced alike ) .3 ) Open source does n't mean the software is FREE , it just means it is open source .
Many companies supply the source code for review when they sell their software to customers.4 ) The lifecycle of " well established " products is well documented ( and generally very long lived ) , and may factor into the choice , as noone wants to scrap the software again in 3 years ( and incur another switchover cost ) when there 's no longer any support for whatever you chose as your platform.5 ) Techonologically , a lot of software just inst available as open source .
You may be unable to find the software you need for your platform , thus again driving the costs up if you have to develop it yourself .
Noone wants to be stuck with a legacy system for the next 15 years ( again ) .So for a long term saving , it 's often cheaper to stay with what you 've got ( or for a new installation , choose the same as everyone else ) and pay a lot of licensefees , than to change to something that 's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.That said , I LOVE linux , open source and free software .
But for commercial use , it just is n't always optimal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What the very short article DOESN'T mention is what we in the industry have known for years:1) A software LICENSE isn't always cheaper than software SUPPORT.
And you DO need support for your platform, open source or not.2) Using a well established vendor software (like say windows), means it's easier (cheaper) to educate people in the software they'll be using, and similarly easier to find qualified support (in house and outsourced alike).3) Open source doesn't mean the software is FREE, it just means it is open source.
Many companies supply the source code for review when they sell their software to customers.4) The lifecycle of "well established" products is well documented (and generally very long lived), and may factor into the choice, as noone wants to scrap the software again in 3 years (and incur another switchover cost) when there's no longer any support for whatever you chose as your platform.5) Techonologically, a lot of software just inst available as open source.
You may be unable to find the software you need for your platform, thus again driving the costs up if you have to develop it yourself.
Noone wants to be stuck with a legacy system for the next 15 years (again).So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got (or for a new installation, choose the same as everyone else) and pay a lot of licensefees, than to change to something that's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.That said, I LOVE linux, open source and free software.
But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097974</id>
	<title>Let's dumb it down, shall we?</title>
	<author>digipres</author>
	<datestamp>1265891400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>From TFA:<br>
&gt; "If the cost of assessing it was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice."<br>

We don't understand it. Do you understand it? This stuff is hard. Have you tried rebooting?<br> <br>

&gt; "While open source software may reduce licensing costs, the cost of support could be an issue."<br>

I was flipping burgers last week and now I are teh IT guy. Have you tried rebooting?<br> <br>

&gt; "Centrelink, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and National Archives of Australia were known to use open source products; however, it was up to individual agencies to make procurement decisions, AGIMO said."<br>

Yes, yes we do. And so do quite a few others. Betcha no-one in the proprietary software world knows who we all are. We're here though, and we're not going away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>From TFA : &gt; " If the cost of assessing it was greater than the cost of the software , you would have to think twice .
" We do n't understand it .
Do you understand it ?
This stuff is hard .
Have you tried rebooting ?
&gt; " While open source software may reduce licensing costs , the cost of support could be an issue .
" I was flipping burgers last week and now I are teh IT guy .
Have you tried rebooting ?
&gt; " Centrelink , the Australian Bureau of Statistics and National Archives of Australia were known to use open source products ; however , it was up to individual agencies to make procurement decisions , AGIMO said .
" Yes , yes we do .
And so do quite a few others .
Betcha no-one in the proprietary software world knows who we all are .
We 're here though , and we 're not going away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From TFA:
&gt; "If the cost of assessing it was greater than the cost of the software, you would have to think twice.
"

We don't understand it.
Do you understand it?
This stuff is hard.
Have you tried rebooting?
&gt; "While open source software may reduce licensing costs, the cost of support could be an issue.
"

I was flipping burgers last week and now I are teh IT guy.
Have you tried rebooting?
&gt; "Centrelink, the Australian Bureau of Statistics and National Archives of Australia were known to use open source products; however, it was up to individual agencies to make procurement decisions, AGIMO said.
"

Yes, yes we do.
And so do quite a few others.
Betcha no-one in the proprietary software world knows who we all are.
We're here though, and we're not going away.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098856</id>
	<title>invest in the country vs sending money out</title>
	<author>higuita</author>
	<datestamp>1265900040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i'm not saying that switching to open source is more expensive, for most things i dont believe its true... but even if was true, for most countries this doesnt matter much, because keeping the proprietary software sends most of the money to another country (if not all) and investing in open source you are supporting the local IT companies (that do the local support and implementation)... the investment in the local business improves the local economy, generating more taxes and wealth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i 'm not saying that switching to open source is more expensive , for most things i dont believe its true... but even if was true , for most countries this doesnt matter much , because keeping the proprietary software sends most of the money to another country ( if not all ) and investing in open source you are supporting the local IT companies ( that do the local support and implementation ) ... the investment in the local business improves the local economy , generating more taxes and wealth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i'm not saying that switching to open source is more expensive, for most things i dont believe its true... but even if was true, for most countries this doesnt matter much, because keeping the proprietary software sends most of the money to another country (if not all) and investing in open source you are supporting the local IT companies (that do the local support and implementation)... the investment in the local business improves the local economy, generating more taxes and wealth</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098152</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in."</p><p>And you know this how? By the skewed reports showing the short term, best case costs?</p><p>Common FUD from a common pontificator!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" In the long term it 's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor 's lock-in .
" And you know this how ?
By the skewed reports showing the short term , best case costs ? Common FUD from a common pontificator !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.
"And you know this how?
By the skewed reports showing the short term, best case costs?Common FUD from a common pontificator!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100632</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>DAldredge</author>
	<datestamp>1265908620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Do you really believe that open source and free software is always optimal?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you really believe that open source and free software is always optimal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you really believe that open source and free software is always optimal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097918</id>
	<title>Proprietary software platform use open-source too</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265890500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Open source is not just about Linux or OpenOffice, many if not all proprietary applications use at least one type of open source software. Such as compression library, boost c++ libraries, STL libraries, SQLite, MySQL, parsers, image and graphics libraries such as GIL, Imagemagick, html or XML libraries, networking libraries and many many others.</p><p>If you business is software, you have to be a complete moron to ignore all that and create everything from the ground up and maintain them - God knows how long it would take to deliver.  The cost does not come from whether the source code is available, it is the vendor who try to lock you in that costs you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Open source is not just about Linux or OpenOffice , many if not all proprietary applications use at least one type of open source software .
Such as compression library , boost c + + libraries , STL libraries , SQLite , MySQL , parsers , image and graphics libraries such as GIL , Imagemagick , html or XML libraries , networking libraries and many many others.If you business is software , you have to be a complete moron to ignore all that and create everything from the ground up and maintain them - God knows how long it would take to deliver .
The cost does not come from whether the source code is available , it is the vendor who try to lock you in that costs you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Open source is not just about Linux or OpenOffice, many if not all proprietary applications use at least one type of open source software.
Such as compression library, boost c++ libraries, STL libraries, SQLite, MySQL, parsers, image and graphics libraries such as GIL, Imagemagick, html or XML libraries, networking libraries and many many others.If you business is software, you have to be a complete moron to ignore all that and create everything from the ground up and maintain them - God knows how long it would take to deliver.
The cost does not come from whether the source code is available, it is the vendor who try to lock you in that costs you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099208</id>
	<title>In related news</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1265901900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Australian government keeps paying drug addicts new doses instead of drug rehab treatments because is cheaper.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Australian government keeps paying drug addicts new doses instead of drug rehab treatments because is cheaper .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Australian government keeps paying drug addicts new doses instead of drug rehab treatments because is cheaper.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31106396</id>
	<title>Go for innovation, not substitution</title>
	<author>Profmeister 3000</author>
	<datestamp>1265888580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sometimes, a better strategy for open source adoption is to focus on new, unmet needs, rather than 'ripping out' proprietary software that 'already works'.</p><p>Consider <a href="http://mashable.com/2010/01/22/open-source-san-francisco/" title="mashable.com" rel="nofollow">the new open source policy in San Francisco city government</a> [mashable.com].  The tech department started using open source for projects that had to be done so quickly, or for so little money, that there was literally no other option.  For example, they used WordPress to launch their RecoverySF.org site in a few weeks, rather than the usual months or years.  Their successes got the attention of city leaders, including the mayor.  With enough open source victories on the ground, it makes it much easier to create a level playing field for open source, or maybe even tilt the field in its favor.</p><p>If you'd like some poorly-written academic papers addressing these issues, I can send you some of mine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sometimes , a better strategy for open source adoption is to focus on new , unmet needs , rather than 'ripping out ' proprietary software that 'already works'.Consider the new open source policy in San Francisco city government [ mashable.com ] .
The tech department started using open source for projects that had to be done so quickly , or for so little money , that there was literally no other option .
For example , they used WordPress to launch their RecoverySF.org site in a few weeks , rather than the usual months or years .
Their successes got the attention of city leaders , including the mayor .
With enough open source victories on the ground , it makes it much easier to create a level playing field for open source , or maybe even tilt the field in its favor.If you 'd like some poorly-written academic papers addressing these issues , I can send you some of mine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sometimes, a better strategy for open source adoption is to focus on new, unmet needs, rather than 'ripping out' proprietary software that 'already works'.Consider the new open source policy in San Francisco city government [mashable.com].
The tech department started using open source for projects that had to be done so quickly, or for so little money, that there was literally no other option.
For example, they used WordPress to launch their RecoverySF.org site in a few weeks, rather than the usual months or years.
Their successes got the attention of city leaders, including the mayor.
With enough open source victories on the ground, it makes it much easier to create a level playing field for open source, or maybe even tilt the field in its favor.If you'd like some poorly-written academic papers addressing these issues, I can send you some of mine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31111288</id>
	<title>It's Time</title>
	<author>BlindBear</author>
	<datestamp>1265977260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's Time to show some gumption and at least start the process of doing the right thing. It will be expensive to correct our past errors, it always is. It is better to provide jobs and industrial growth for Australia rather than growth of foreign propriety companies.
If Peru can stick it to Microsoft in such a polite and correct manner we should be able to second the motion. Munich is doing a slow changeover so there are no losers, we can do the same. Imagine.. the Australian Government paying Australian programmers/developers to create and support software to help Australian taxpaying citizens in Australia to improve their Australian  lives<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. who would ever think of that.

    It's Time, It's Time, Oh It's Time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's Time to show some gumption and at least start the process of doing the right thing .
It will be expensive to correct our past errors , it always is .
It is better to provide jobs and industrial growth for Australia rather than growth of foreign propriety companies .
If Peru can stick it to Microsoft in such a polite and correct manner we should be able to second the motion .
Munich is doing a slow changeover so there are no losers , we can do the same .
Imagine.. the Australian Government paying Australian programmers/developers to create and support software to help Australian taxpaying citizens in Australia to improve their Australian lives .. who would ever think of that .
It 's Time , It 's Time , Oh It 's Time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's Time to show some gumption and at least start the process of doing the right thing.
It will be expensive to correct our past errors, it always is.
It is better to provide jobs and industrial growth for Australia rather than growth of foreign propriety companies.
If Peru can stick it to Microsoft in such a polite and correct manner we should be able to second the motion.
Munich is doing a slow changeover so there are no losers, we can do the same.
Imagine.. the Australian Government paying Australian programmers/developers to create and support software to help Australian taxpaying citizens in Australia to improve their Australian  lives .. who would ever think of that.
It's Time, It's Time, Oh It's Time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098070</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>RenHoek</author>
	<datestamp>1265892660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1) But proprietary software needs support as well. So there's no real difference here between open source and non-open source.</p><p>2) That's application training, and regardless if it's open source software or not, people will need training. Again no real difference.</p><p>3) Many companies do NOT let you review source code. SOME companies allow you to license the source code for a LOT of money.</p><p>4) This is silly.. Would you say Windows is 'well established'? They fudged up the successor to XP for a long time, otherwise you have to change to the latest flavor of Windows in 3-5 years. In fact, they will actually not SELL it to you anymore! No such problems with open source.</p><p>5) True, a lot of stuff isn't available in open source. However developing your own apps in-house is not necessarily a bad thing as you say it. I've seen plenty of big time commercial packages just fail again and again due to bugs or in the end just not fitting it's purpose for what it was bought for. The advantage of in-house custom made, means it should fit 100\%, you have debugging in your own hands, can be cheaper in the long-run, you don't have to worry about the product being discontinued and if it's good, you might even sell it to other similar companies.</p><p>So I will have do disagree with your final conclusion. I'm not saying open source is ALWAYS cheaper, but you'll have to look better into the situation before you can make that assessment.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 ) But proprietary software needs support as well .
So there 's no real difference here between open source and non-open source.2 ) That 's application training , and regardless if it 's open source software or not , people will need training .
Again no real difference.3 ) Many companies do NOT let you review source code .
SOME companies allow you to license the source code for a LOT of money.4 ) This is silly.. Would you say Windows is 'well established ' ?
They fudged up the successor to XP for a long time , otherwise you have to change to the latest flavor of Windows in 3-5 years .
In fact , they will actually not SELL it to you anymore !
No such problems with open source.5 ) True , a lot of stuff is n't available in open source .
However developing your own apps in-house is not necessarily a bad thing as you say it .
I 've seen plenty of big time commercial packages just fail again and again due to bugs or in the end just not fitting it 's purpose for what it was bought for .
The advantage of in-house custom made , means it should fit 100 \ % , you have debugging in your own hands , can be cheaper in the long-run , you do n't have to worry about the product being discontinued and if it 's good , you might even sell it to other similar companies.So I will have do disagree with your final conclusion .
I 'm not saying open source is ALWAYS cheaper , but you 'll have to look better into the situation before you can make that assessment .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1) But proprietary software needs support as well.
So there's no real difference here between open source and non-open source.2) That's application training, and regardless if it's open source software or not, people will need training.
Again no real difference.3) Many companies do NOT let you review source code.
SOME companies allow you to license the source code for a LOT of money.4) This is silly.. Would you say Windows is 'well established'?
They fudged up the successor to XP for a long time, otherwise you have to change to the latest flavor of Windows in 3-5 years.
In fact, they will actually not SELL it to you anymore!
No such problems with open source.5) True, a lot of stuff isn't available in open source.
However developing your own apps in-house is not necessarily a bad thing as you say it.
I've seen plenty of big time commercial packages just fail again and again due to bugs or in the end just not fitting it's purpose for what it was bought for.
The advantage of in-house custom made, means it should fit 100\%, you have debugging in your own hands, can be cheaper in the long-run, you don't have to worry about the product being discontinued and if it's good, you might even sell it to other similar companies.So I will have do disagree with your final conclusion.
I'm not saying open source is ALWAYS cheaper, but you'll have to look better into the situation before you can make that assessment.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099174</id>
	<title>Hah !</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265901660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Hah! The Senate is too expensive !</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hah !
The Senate is too expensive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hah!
The Senate is too expensive !</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100538</id>
	<title>They are a victim of vendor lock-in</title>
	<author>apexwm</author>
	<datestamp>1265908140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Unfortunately, this happens all of the time.  Organizations get locked in and they cannot afford to switch to something else.  However I find it interesting they concluded that there was no cost savings by switching to open source over the long term.   Yes, there are resources put in and costs at first to switch, but in the long run you should be in better shape as you will not ever have to switch again.  There are a whole list of hidden savings with open source that many times are not taken into account.  Not only cost savings of the software itself, but cost savings from being on an open platform that allows customization and compatibility.

<a href="http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux" title="apex-internet.com" rel="nofollow">http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux</a> [apex-internet.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Unfortunately , this happens all of the time .
Organizations get locked in and they can not afford to switch to something else .
However I find it interesting they concluded that there was no cost savings by switching to open source over the long term .
Yes , there are resources put in and costs at first to switch , but in the long run you should be in better shape as you will not ever have to switch again .
There are a whole list of hidden savings with open source that many times are not taken into account .
Not only cost savings of the software itself , but cost savings from being on an open platform that allows customization and compatibility .
http : //members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux [ apex-internet.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unfortunately, this happens all of the time.
Organizations get locked in and they cannot afford to switch to something else.
However I find it interesting they concluded that there was no cost savings by switching to open source over the long term.
Yes, there are resources put in and costs at first to switch, but in the long run you should be in better shape as you will not ever have to switch again.
There are a whole list of hidden savings with open source that many times are not taken into account.
Not only cost savings of the software itself, but cost savings from being on an open platform that allows customization and compatibility.
http://members.apex-internet.com/sa/windowslinux [apex-internet.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100500</id>
	<title>Re:Graham Fry = idiot</title>
	<author>daboochmeister</author>
	<datestamp>1265907900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;&gt; Since when did zero multiplied by anything become a number?   Imbecile.

Uhh<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... zero is a number.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; Since when did zero multiplied by anything become a number ?
Imbecile . Uhh ... zero is a number .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; Since when did zero multiplied by anything become a number?
Imbecile.

Uhh ... zero is a number.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31166964</id>
	<title>Re:Graham Fry = idiot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Im curious too as to why he implies that there is no cost for assessing closed source ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Im curious too as to why he implies that there is no cost for assessing closed source ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Im curious too as to why he implies that there is no cost for assessing closed source ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31109834</id>
	<title>Re:Do this guys know the definition of user lock-i</title>
	<author>marafa</author>
	<datestamp>1265913360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yes minister</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yes minister</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yes minister</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098124</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265893620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Of course Microsoft offer support.  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'mission critical documents' but they offer a high level of support for all of their products.<p>
They will create patches for you if you discover a bug which is effecting your systems and, in most cases, this graduates to a KB once they have tested it fully.  The turnaround for this type of thing is usually as long as it takes them - in the order of days (not months, and sometimes less) - and in the meantime they will devise a workaround suitable to your environment.  I couldn't comment on cost, though it is obviously worth whatever they charge considering how many large companies are onboard.</p><p>Microsoft's definition of EOL is that they will no longer patch bugs found in the product, nor will you be able to obtain support either online, via email or telephone.  It doesn't begin shutting down servers, though I suspect if you are running any 10 year old hardware it may be well past the due time for you, as the administrator, to begin a hardware refresh cycle.  With an Enterprise-level agreement you will not be paying for the copy of 'Windows 2000' or 'Windows 2003" but rather '<i>x</i> copies of Windows Server OS' so it makes sense that in order to get the full benefit of your licensing you upgrade your operating system and software whenever possible.</p><p>I also don't buy your comment that you can only have first-level support for a proprietary product.  Using MS as the example we have been, I think you'll find that the majority of people supporting Microsoft systems are Levels 2,3,4+ (whatever 4+ may be).</p><p>My experience comes from working in a range of large corporations, both consulting and in-house, where Microsoft was the ONLY option due to the quality of the overall product and support provided on their enterprise products. </p><p>FWIW I use Mac at home.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course Microsoft offer support .
I 'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'mission critical documents ' but they offer a high level of support for all of their products .
They will create patches for you if you discover a bug which is effecting your systems and , in most cases , this graduates to a KB once they have tested it fully .
The turnaround for this type of thing is usually as long as it takes them - in the order of days ( not months , and sometimes less ) - and in the meantime they will devise a workaround suitable to your environment .
I could n't comment on cost , though it is obviously worth whatever they charge considering how many large companies are onboard.Microsoft 's definition of EOL is that they will no longer patch bugs found in the product , nor will you be able to obtain support either online , via email or telephone .
It does n't begin shutting down servers , though I suspect if you are running any 10 year old hardware it may be well past the due time for you , as the administrator , to begin a hardware refresh cycle .
With an Enterprise-level agreement you will not be paying for the copy of 'Windows 2000 ' or 'Windows 2003 " but rather 'x copies of Windows Server OS ' so it makes sense that in order to get the full benefit of your licensing you upgrade your operating system and software whenever possible.I also do n't buy your comment that you can only have first-level support for a proprietary product .
Using MS as the example we have been , I think you 'll find that the majority of people supporting Microsoft systems are Levels 2,3,4 + ( whatever 4 + may be ) .My experience comes from working in a range of large corporations , both consulting and in-house , where Microsoft was the ONLY option due to the quality of the overall product and support provided on their enterprise products .
FWIW I use Mac at home .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course Microsoft offer support.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'mission critical documents' but they offer a high level of support for all of their products.
They will create patches for you if you discover a bug which is effecting your systems and, in most cases, this graduates to a KB once they have tested it fully.
The turnaround for this type of thing is usually as long as it takes them - in the order of days (not months, and sometimes less) - and in the meantime they will devise a workaround suitable to your environment.
I couldn't comment on cost, though it is obviously worth whatever they charge considering how many large companies are onboard.Microsoft's definition of EOL is that they will no longer patch bugs found in the product, nor will you be able to obtain support either online, via email or telephone.
It doesn't begin shutting down servers, though I suspect if you are running any 10 year old hardware it may be well past the due time for you, as the administrator, to begin a hardware refresh cycle.
With an Enterprise-level agreement you will not be paying for the copy of 'Windows 2000' or 'Windows 2003" but rather 'x copies of Windows Server OS' so it makes sense that in order to get the full benefit of your licensing you upgrade your operating system and software whenever possible.I also don't buy your comment that you can only have first-level support for a proprietary product.
Using MS as the example we have been, I think you'll find that the majority of people supporting Microsoft systems are Levels 2,3,4+ (whatever 4+ may be).My experience comes from working in a range of large corporations, both consulting and in-house, where Microsoft was the ONLY option due to the quality of the overall product and support provided on their enterprise products.
FWIW I use Mac at home.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101762</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>ClosedSource</author>
	<datestamp>1265914740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"And by support I mean, if there is a bug in Word corrupting your mission critical documents, will they promise to fix it?"</p><p>What sort of bug do you imagine in such a scenario, the letter 'k' comes out as an 'l' or somesuch? It's hard to imagine "mission critical" documents or the inability to work around any word processor bugs. People do occasionally back-up important documents do they not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" And by support I mean , if there is a bug in Word corrupting your mission critical documents , will they promise to fix it ?
" What sort of bug do you imagine in such a scenario , the letter 'k ' comes out as an 'l ' or somesuch ?
It 's hard to imagine " mission critical " documents or the inability to work around any word processor bugs .
People do occasionally back-up important documents do they not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"And by support I mean, if there is a bug in Word corrupting your mission critical documents, will they promise to fix it?
"What sort of bug do you imagine in such a scenario, the letter 'k' comes out as an 'l' or somesuch?
It's hard to imagine "mission critical" documents or the inability to work around any word processor bugs.
People do occasionally back-up important documents do they not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097874</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31104192</id>
	<title>On spending locally: it's a hoax</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1265879940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Money payed for foreign company is money lost for your country, while money payed to local developers stays and works.</p></div><p>And what is the foreign country going to do with your numbered paper slips?</p><p>If the money never comes back to your country, you have gotten the thing you bought in exchange for a slip of paper.  Paper's pretty cheap, software isn't.  Just print some new money and move on.</p><p>If it does come back, well, then it'll create some jobs and do all the other good things locally when it comes back, right?</p><p>But know this: having a good economy isn't about creating jobs.  It's about people doing something worthwhile with their time and the resources available.</p><p>Here's a silly example: I can create any number of jobs.  Have half the unemployed dig ditches and the other half fill the ditches back up again.  There you go, job machine.  And the taxpayers' money you gave them for doing it stays local, and you're supporting local construction industry and contributing to your own GDP.  How about if everybody did that?!  That'd be... in fact, that'd be a disaster.  That'd make the community (county, state, country) dependent on donations from the outside, because no one's making food, houses, clothes, cars or anything else that the people want.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Money payed for foreign company is money lost for your country , while money payed to local developers stays and works.And what is the foreign country going to do with your numbered paper slips ? If the money never comes back to your country , you have gotten the thing you bought in exchange for a slip of paper .
Paper 's pretty cheap , software is n't .
Just print some new money and move on.If it does come back , well , then it 'll create some jobs and do all the other good things locally when it comes back , right ? But know this : having a good economy is n't about creating jobs .
It 's about people doing something worthwhile with their time and the resources available.Here 's a silly example : I can create any number of jobs .
Have half the unemployed dig ditches and the other half fill the ditches back up again .
There you go , job machine .
And the taxpayers ' money you gave them for doing it stays local , and you 're supporting local construction industry and contributing to your own GDP .
How about if everybody did that ? !
That 'd be... in fact , that 'd be a disaster .
That 'd make the community ( county , state , country ) dependent on donations from the outside , because no one 's making food , houses , clothes , cars or anything else that the people want .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Money payed for foreign company is money lost for your country, while money payed to local developers stays and works.And what is the foreign country going to do with your numbered paper slips?If the money never comes back to your country, you have gotten the thing you bought in exchange for a slip of paper.
Paper's pretty cheap, software isn't.
Just print some new money and move on.If it does come back, well, then it'll create some jobs and do all the other good things locally when it comes back, right?But know this: having a good economy isn't about creating jobs.
It's about people doing something worthwhile with their time and the resources available.Here's a silly example: I can create any number of jobs.
Have half the unemployed dig ditches and the other half fill the ditches back up again.
There you go, job machine.
And the taxpayers' money you gave them for doing it stays local, and you're supporting local construction industry and contributing to your own GDP.
How about if everybody did that?!
That'd be... in fact, that'd be a disaster.
That'd make the community (county, state, country) dependent on donations from the outside, because no one's making food, houses, clothes, cars or anything else that the people want.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098380</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097524</id>
	<title>Re:Do this guys know the definition of user lock-i</title>
	<author>MichaelSmith</author>
	<datestamp>1265886480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You have to consider the matter in the long term to see the advantages, and long-term thinking is seldom seen in modern politics<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-))</p></div><p>Four years at the Federal level. Three years in most states and territories.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You have to consider the matter in the long term to see the advantages , and long-term thinking is seldom seen in modern politics ; - ) ) Four years at the Federal level .
Three years in most states and territories .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have to consider the matter in the long term to see the advantages, and long-term thinking is seldom seen in modern politics ;-))Four years at the Federal level.
Three years in most states and territories.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31112828</id>
	<title>Re:an interesting thread, but...</title>
	<author>cynicist</author>
	<datestamp>1265989380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>OO Spreadsheet is not an acceptable replacement for MS Excel for power users</p></div><p>I've read this statement often. What featureset is OO Spreadsheet missing that Excel power users need?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>OO Spreadsheet is not an acceptable replacement for MS Excel for power usersI 've read this statement often .
What featureset is OO Spreadsheet missing that Excel power users need ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OO Spreadsheet is not an acceptable replacement for MS Excel for power usersI've read this statement often.
What featureset is OO Spreadsheet missing that Excel power users need?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098248</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101350</id>
	<title>Re:Do this guys know the definition of user lock-i</title>
	<author>turkeyfish</author>
	<datestamp>1265912520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Without US business interests funneling perks to Australian bureaucrats on a regular basis, just how do you Aussies expect Microsoft to keep America afloat?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Without US business interests funneling perks to Australian bureaucrats on a regular basis , just how do you Aussies expect Microsoft to keep America afloat ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without US business interests funneling perks to Australian bureaucrats on a regular basis, just how do you Aussies expect Microsoft to keep America afloat?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097708</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098754</id>
	<title>Rant on FUDthorics</title>
	<author>oranGoo</author>
	<datestamp>1265899560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Imagine that what is being discussed was a sorce of energy and not software and that spokeperson Graham Dry said:.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>"The Australian Government Energy Management Office says that the cost of a platform change could cost more than it saves. It was pushed to investigate alternative energy source to reduce its AUD$500m budget at a Senate meeting yesterday. From the article: 'Agencies are obliged to consider value for money on each occasion they choose an energy source,' spokesperson Graham Dry said. 'If the cost of assessing it [alternative energy] was greater than the cost of the energy, you would have to think twice.'"</p></div><p>First, if the cost of assessment is so high then you are more locked in than you realize and than you should have been at the first place. (And on the other hand, if by some stroke of luck, we would really-really-for-real find energy which costs less then current cheapeast sources, I doubt that maintenance and support costs would make us drop that particular path without even properly assessing it.)</p><p>Secondly, lets assume you have thought twice and decided to drop the idea of open source. That will definitively be the right strategy. For sure. Better yet - forbid that open source should be used by any government agency (due to possibly 'higher costs of switching to it', which means government's inability=incompetence and/or unwillingness=lobbied to even assess it!), and then just wait for proprietary vendors to lower their prices. That sounds like a great plan. Sure to attract many anarchist votes.</p><p>Secondly, these kind of things should not be examined at each ocasion - they require strategy. Like, for example, deciding what sort of energy should be used in public transport. Anything short of 15 year plan should not even be considered.</p><p>Here's a short calculation - 15 years of 500M budgets with growth of 8\% yearly amounts to 13.58B in 15 years. Let's say that half of the software costs could be open sourced - this gives you 6.79B over 15 years to ensure support and maintenance, on top of community support and maintenance.</p><p>I quicky googled out that for 10B you could write Fedora 9 from scratch. That's <i>all</i> of the software in Fedora 9 repos, including openoffice and linux kernel (ref from <a href="http://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/estimatinglinux.pdf" title="linuxfoundation.org" rel="nofollow">linuxfoundation.org</a> [linuxfoundation.org], based on line numbers with overhead factors). It is a lot, but it does not sound out of scope for some governments' budgets.</p><p>The main problem here is that countries do not realize what is their position in terms of software systems. They fail to see them as strategic resource. Like energy. Which they are. And that's why it is important. And proprietary vendors know this and do their homework by lobbying government bodies and international organizations (standards).</p><p>Actually one of the differences between the software systems and energy, from the government perspective, is that energy sources are mostly defined (research output has results which are simple - in essence this much of energy for that much $), where the software systems can be built according to requirements. At least in theory. In practice you have open software where this is the driving factor and proprietary software where this comes way after maximizing profits.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Imagine that what is being discussed was a sorce of energy and not software and that spokeperson Graham Dry said : .
" The Australian Government Energy Management Office says that the cost of a platform change could cost more than it saves .
It was pushed to investigate alternative energy source to reduce its AUD $ 500m budget at a Senate meeting yesterday .
From the article : 'Agencies are obliged to consider value for money on each occasion they choose an energy source, ' spokesperson Graham Dry said .
'If the cost of assessing it [ alternative energy ] was greater than the cost of the energy , you would have to think twice .
' " First , if the cost of assessment is so high then you are more locked in than you realize and than you should have been at the first place .
( And on the other hand , if by some stroke of luck , we would really-really-for-real find energy which costs less then current cheapeast sources , I doubt that maintenance and support costs would make us drop that particular path without even properly assessing it .
) Secondly , lets assume you have thought twice and decided to drop the idea of open source .
That will definitively be the right strategy .
For sure .
Better yet - forbid that open source should be used by any government agency ( due to possibly 'higher costs of switching to it ' , which means government 's inability = incompetence and/or unwillingness = lobbied to even assess it !
) , and then just wait for proprietary vendors to lower their prices .
That sounds like a great plan .
Sure to attract many anarchist votes.Secondly , these kind of things should not be examined at each ocasion - they require strategy .
Like , for example , deciding what sort of energy should be used in public transport .
Anything short of 15 year plan should not even be considered.Here 's a short calculation - 15 years of 500M budgets with growth of 8 \ % yearly amounts to 13.58B in 15 years .
Let 's say that half of the software costs could be open sourced - this gives you 6.79B over 15 years to ensure support and maintenance , on top of community support and maintenance.I quicky googled out that for 10B you could write Fedora 9 from scratch .
That 's all of the software in Fedora 9 repos , including openoffice and linux kernel ( ref from linuxfoundation.org [ linuxfoundation.org ] , based on line numbers with overhead factors ) .
It is a lot , but it does not sound out of scope for some governments ' budgets.The main problem here is that countries do not realize what is their position in terms of software systems .
They fail to see them as strategic resource .
Like energy .
Which they are .
And that 's why it is important .
And proprietary vendors know this and do their homework by lobbying government bodies and international organizations ( standards ) .Actually one of the differences between the software systems and energy , from the government perspective , is that energy sources are mostly defined ( research output has results which are simple - in essence this much of energy for that much $ ) , where the software systems can be built according to requirements .
At least in theory .
In practice you have open software where this is the driving factor and proprietary software where this comes way after maximizing profits .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Imagine that what is being discussed was a sorce of energy and not software and that spokeperson Graham Dry said:.
"The Australian Government Energy Management Office says that the cost of a platform change could cost more than it saves.
It was pushed to investigate alternative energy source to reduce its AUD$500m budget at a Senate meeting yesterday.
From the article: 'Agencies are obliged to consider value for money on each occasion they choose an energy source,' spokesperson Graham Dry said.
'If the cost of assessing it [alternative energy] was greater than the cost of the energy, you would have to think twice.
'"First, if the cost of assessment is so high then you are more locked in than you realize and than you should have been at the first place.
(And on the other hand, if by some stroke of luck, we would really-really-for-real find energy which costs less then current cheapeast sources, I doubt that maintenance and support costs would make us drop that particular path without even properly assessing it.
)Secondly, lets assume you have thought twice and decided to drop the idea of open source.
That will definitively be the right strategy.
For sure.
Better yet - forbid that open source should be used by any government agency (due to possibly 'higher costs of switching to it', which means government's inability=incompetence and/or unwillingness=lobbied to even assess it!
), and then just wait for proprietary vendors to lower their prices.
That sounds like a great plan.
Sure to attract many anarchist votes.Secondly, these kind of things should not be examined at each ocasion - they require strategy.
Like, for example, deciding what sort of energy should be used in public transport.
Anything short of 15 year plan should not even be considered.Here's a short calculation - 15 years of 500M budgets with growth of 8\% yearly amounts to 13.58B in 15 years.
Let's say that half of the software costs could be open sourced - this gives you 6.79B over 15 years to ensure support and maintenance, on top of community support and maintenance.I quicky googled out that for 10B you could write Fedora 9 from scratch.
That's all of the software in Fedora 9 repos, including openoffice and linux kernel (ref from linuxfoundation.org [linuxfoundation.org], based on line numbers with overhead factors).
It is a lot, but it does not sound out of scope for some governments' budgets.The main problem here is that countries do not realize what is their position in terms of software systems.
They fail to see them as strategic resource.
Like energy.
Which they are.
And that's why it is important.
And proprietary vendors know this and do their homework by lobbying government bodies and international organizations (standards).Actually one of the differences between the software systems and energy, from the government perspective, is that energy sources are mostly defined (research output has results which are simple - in essence this much of energy for that much $), where the software systems can be built according to requirements.
At least in theory.
In practice you have open software where this is the driving factor and proprietary software where this comes way after maximizing profits.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100620</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Sloppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265908500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Project foo stops being actively maintained. You hire 5 developers, 2 testers to work on it. You pay them ~50-60k/yr. (5 devs, 2 testers - This is for a smallish project.)</p><p>You can do the math and decide if that is worth the cost of sticking with open source or just paying the license cost<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></div></blockquote><p>Wait a minute, let's compare apples to apples.  In that scenario, "just paying the license cost" isn't an option because proprietary project foo isn't being actively maintained.  So you have to hire 20 developers and 8 testers to totally recreate it from scratch since <em>you're legally prohibited from taking over the maintenance</em> of the old code, and even if you decide to break the law, you're stuck with trying to modify a binary.</p><p>And if you're gonna say, "Oh, I wouldn't hire 20 developers because I would just switch from proprietary dead project foo to proprietary live project bar" then that same option is also available to people who use free project foo.</p><p>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Project foo stops being actively maintained .
You hire 5 developers , 2 testers to work on it .
You pay them ~ 50-60k/yr .
( 5 devs , 2 testers - This is for a smallish project .
) You can do the math and decide if that is worth the cost of sticking with open source or just paying the license cost ; ) Wait a minute , let 's compare apples to apples .
In that scenario , " just paying the license cost " is n't an option because proprietary project foo is n't being actively maintained .
So you have to hire 20 developers and 8 testers to totally recreate it from scratch since you 're legally prohibited from taking over the maintenance of the old code , and even if you decide to break the law , you 're stuck with trying to modify a binary.And if you 're gon na say , " Oh , I would n't hire 20 developers because I would just switch from proprietary dead project foo to proprietary live project bar " then that same option is also available to people who use free project foo.In the long term it 's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor 's lock-in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Project foo stops being actively maintained.
You hire 5 developers, 2 testers to work on it.
You pay them ~50-60k/yr.
(5 devs, 2 testers - This is for a smallish project.
)You can do the math and decide if that is worth the cost of sticking with open source or just paying the license cost ;)Wait a minute, let's compare apples to apples.
In that scenario, "just paying the license cost" isn't an option because proprietary project foo isn't being actively maintained.
So you have to hire 20 developers and 8 testers to totally recreate it from scratch since you're legally prohibited from taking over the maintenance of the old code, and even if you decide to break the law, you're stuck with trying to modify a binary.And if you're gonna say, "Oh, I wouldn't hire 20 developers because I would just switch from proprietary dead project foo to proprietary live project bar" then that same option is also available to people who use free project foo.In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098062</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099616</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>jedidiah</author>
	<datestamp>1265904060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Unless you can talk in terms of kilo-bucks per year and a specific SLA, you're still just blowing smoke.</p><p>You're trying to apply enterprise support terms to consumer products and engaging in vague handwaving to cover up the fact that you are pulling stuff from your nether-regions.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Unless you can talk in terms of kilo-bucks per year and a specific SLA , you 're still just blowing smoke.You 're trying to apply enterprise support terms to consumer products and engaging in vague handwaving to cover up the fact that you are pulling stuff from your nether-regions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Unless you can talk in terms of kilo-bucks per year and a specific SLA, you're still just blowing smoke.You're trying to apply enterprise support terms to consumer products and engaging in vague handwaving to cover up the fact that you are pulling stuff from your nether-regions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097864</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>SharpFang</author>
	<datestamp>1265890020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.</i></p><p>We're not talking about COMMERCIAL.<br>We're talking about GOVERNMENTAL.</p><p>In this case cost is a far secondary issue.</p><p>1) while License is usually cheaper than full IP rights for one item, when it comes to deployment of thousands it's often cheaper to purchase IP rights and be free to deploy as much as you wish (one per every citizen of the country...?) Also, starting your own support dept. in this case may be desirable, especially if the problem is in the software and the vendor is not willing to fix it.</p><p>2) Cheaper. Safer? More available? Without creating dangerous lock-in? Without danger of losing backwards compatibility?</p><p>3) Yes. It doesn't have to be gratis. It must be open.</p><p>4) The life cycle of a well established product ends when the vendor says so, and that's the final end. The life cycle of an open-source product ends when you're not willing to support (pay for) its development. Nobody can force you to upgrade if the current version is better than the new one.</p><p>5) A lot of software could be written for the cost of licenses of purchasing software that is already written. It's taxpayer's money better spent if the taxpayer gets a piece of software they can use in return, than if a foreign firm gets to sell some licenses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But for commercial use , it just is n't always optimal.We 're not talking about COMMERCIAL.We 're talking about GOVERNMENTAL.In this case cost is a far secondary issue.1 ) while License is usually cheaper than full IP rights for one item , when it comes to deployment of thousands it 's often cheaper to purchase IP rights and be free to deploy as much as you wish ( one per every citizen of the country... ?
) Also , starting your own support dept .
in this case may be desirable , especially if the problem is in the software and the vendor is not willing to fix it.2 ) Cheaper .
Safer ? More available ?
Without creating dangerous lock-in ?
Without danger of losing backwards compatibility ? 3 ) Yes .
It does n't have to be gratis .
It must be open.4 ) The life cycle of a well established product ends when the vendor says so , and that 's the final end .
The life cycle of an open-source product ends when you 're not willing to support ( pay for ) its development .
Nobody can force you to upgrade if the current version is better than the new one.5 ) A lot of software could be written for the cost of licenses of purchasing software that is already written .
It 's taxpayer 's money better spent if the taxpayer gets a piece of software they can use in return , than if a foreign firm gets to sell some licenses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.We're not talking about COMMERCIAL.We're talking about GOVERNMENTAL.In this case cost is a far secondary issue.1) while License is usually cheaper than full IP rights for one item, when it comes to deployment of thousands it's often cheaper to purchase IP rights and be free to deploy as much as you wish (one per every citizen of the country...?
) Also, starting your own support dept.
in this case may be desirable, especially if the problem is in the software and the vendor is not willing to fix it.2) Cheaper.
Safer? More available?
Without creating dangerous lock-in?
Without danger of losing backwards compatibility?3) Yes.
It doesn't have to be gratis.
It must be open.4) The life cycle of a well established product ends when the vendor says so, and that's the final end.
The life cycle of an open-source product ends when you're not willing to support (pay for) its development.
Nobody can force you to upgrade if the current version is better than the new one.5) A lot of software could be written for the cost of licenses of purchasing software that is already written.
It's taxpayer's money better spent if the taxpayer gets a piece of software they can use in return, than if a foreign firm gets to sell some licenses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794</id>
	<title>Re:Hidden costs of open source</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265889240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got (or for a new installation, choose the same as everyone else) and pay a lot of licensefees, than to change to something that's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.</p></div><p>In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>That said, I LOVE linux, open source and free software. But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.</p></div><p>Oh, the hallmark of Microsoft astroturfers.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>So for a long term saving , it 's often cheaper to stay with what you 've got ( or for a new installation , choose the same as everyone else ) and pay a lot of licensefees , than to change to something that 's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.In the long term it 's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor 's lock-in.That said , I LOVE linux , open source and free software .
But for commercial use , it just is n't always optimal.Oh , the hallmark of Microsoft astroturfers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So for a long term saving, it's often cheaper to stay with what you've got (or for a new installation, choose the same as everyone else) and pay a lot of licensefees, than to change to something that's cheaper in licensing and have a shitload of other costs.In the long term it's NEVER cheaper to follow a vendor's lock-in.That said, I LOVE linux, open source and free software.
But for commercial use, it just isn't always optimal.Oh, the hallmark of Microsoft astroturfers.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099742
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31104192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098380
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098120
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100632
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097558
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101266
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098070
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100500
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31109834
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31166964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097864
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098188
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098328
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099866
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31103134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098090
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098080
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31103904
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097902
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098612
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31110642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098152
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31112828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098248
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097580
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098636
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098062
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31107214
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100802
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098418
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101350
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097708
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097524
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098358
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101762
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097874
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31172078
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_0116222_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098746
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31107214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100802
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31103134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098140
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31166964
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098616
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31172078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098078
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098248
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31112828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31110642
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097478
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097864
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099742
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097874
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101762
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098080
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098124
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099866
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098188
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099302
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101266
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098090
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098070
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31099648
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097794
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098152
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098358
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098120
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098418
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098524
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100632
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098062
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098636
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31100620
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098746
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097580
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097524
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097708
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098584
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31101350
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31109834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097558
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097902
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31103904
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098380
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31104192
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31098856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_0116222.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_0116222.31097922
</commentlist>
</conversation>
