Comments on: A Week of Divesting: Software http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2009/09/04/a-week-of-divesting-software/ Education, Technology, Productivity. Sat, 13 Mar 2010 14:10:25 +0000 hourly 1 By: JoanVinallCox http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2009/09/04/a-week-of-divesting-software/comment-page-1/#comment-3459 JoanVinallCox Fri, 04 Sep 2009 19:20:22 +0000 http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/?p=2934#comment-3459 I love free stuff, but know that people have to make a living so I donate to the creators of free stuff when I use it a lot, and try to mention them on Twitter or in my blogs, to return free PR. I love free stuff, but know that people have to make a living so I donate to the creators of free stuff when I use it a lot, and try to mention them on Twitter or in my blogs, to return free PR.

]]> By: JoanVinallCox http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2009/09/04/a-week-of-divesting-software/comment-page-1/#comment-3053 JoanVinallCox Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:20:22 +0000 http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/?p=2934#comment-3053 I love free stuff, but know that people have to make a living so I donate to the creators of free stuff when I use it a lot, and try to mention them on Twitter or in my blogs, to return free PR. I love free stuff, but know that people have to make a living so I donate to the creators of free stuff when I use it a lot, and try to mention them on Twitter or in my blogs, to return free PR.

]]> By: Stewart DInnage http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2009/09/04/a-week-of-divesting-software/comment-page-1/#comment-3052 Stewart DInnage Fri, 04 Sep 2009 16:53:35 +0000 http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/?p=2934#comment-3052 Some interesting points but personally I think that the patent/copyright system is still broken for the 21st century. Henry Mintzberg suggests that big pharma (in the states at least) are not charging based on the cost of development but what the market will bear and that "Much of the upstream research is government subsidized, which means that tax dollars may be converted into profits for pharmaceutical companies."<br>This to me seems plain wrong!<br><a href="http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/175/4/374.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/175/4/374.pdf</a><br>-<br>also on the aspect of purchasing software in the UK, if you are spending UK taxpayers pounds you should be aware that the "Government is explicitly declaring its support for a level playing field between OSS and proprietary software procurement within Government by acknowledging the competitive viability of OSS solutions."<br><br><a href="http://www.ogc.gov.uk/assets/images/OGCOpenSourceSoftwarePolicy.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ogc.gov.uk/assets/images/OGCOpenSour...</a><br>something I introduced my University to at the board of studies.<br>the report also states<br>"Purchasing Units should question all assumptions about maintenance of the status quo or acceptance of brand leadership or dominance before purchase."<br>and that<br>"Purchasers must satisfy themselves, and Gateway reviewers, that full cognisance has been taken of the potential for such lock-in and that any decision to continue with a proprietary standard can show that it achieves best value for money over the full life cycle."<br>the lock in being a key issue when purchasing proprietary software that in my opinion is oft overlooked in schools.<br><br>None of that is to say that proprietary solutions can't offer the best value for money, just that OSS should always be given a fair hearing! Some interesting points but personally I think that the patent/copyright system is still broken for the 21st century. Henry Mintzberg suggests that big pharma (in the states at least) are not charging based on the cost of development but what the market will bear and that “Much of the upstream research is government subsidized, which means that tax dollars may be converted into profits for pharmaceutical companies.”
This to me seems plain wrong!
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/175/4/374.pdf
-
also on the aspect of purchasing software in the UK, if you are spending UK taxpayers pounds you should be aware that the “Government is explicitly declaring its support for a level playing field between OSS and proprietary software procurement within Government by acknowledging the competitive viability of OSS solutions.”

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/assets/images/OGCOpenSour...
something I introduced my University to at the board of studies.
the report also states
“Purchasing Units should question all assumptions about maintenance of the status quo or acceptance of brand leadership or dominance before purchase.”
and that
“Purchasers must satisfy themselves, and Gateway reviewers, that full cognisance has been taken of the potential for such lock-in and that any decision to continue with a proprietary standard can show that it achieves best value for money over the full life cycle.”
the lock in being a key issue when purchasing proprietary software that in my opinion is oft overlooked in schools.

None of that is to say that proprietary solutions can't offer the best value for money, just that OSS should always be given a fair hearing!

]]> By: JoanVinallCox http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2009/09/04/a-week-of-divesting-software/comment-page-1/#comment-2746 JoanVinallCox Fri, 04 Sep 2009 12:20:22 +0000 http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/?p=2934#comment-2746 I love free stuff, but know that people have to make a living so I donate to the creators of free stuff when I use it a lot, and try to mention them on Twitter or in my blogs, to return free PR. I love free stuff, but know that people have to make a living so I donate to the creators of free stuff when I use it a lot, and try to mention them on Twitter or in my blogs, to return free PR.

]]> By: stewartdinnage http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/2009/09/04/a-week-of-divesting-software/comment-page-1/#comment-2744 stewartdinnage Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:53:35 +0000 http://dougbelshaw.com/blog/?p=2934#comment-2744 Some interesting points but personally I think that the patent/copyright system is still broken for the 21st century. Henry Mintzberg suggests that big pharma (in the states at least) are not charging based on the cost of development but what the market will bear and that "Much of the upstream research is government subsidized, which means that tax dollars may be converted into profits for pharmaceutical companies."<br>This to me seems plain wrong!<br><a href="http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/175/4/374.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/175/4/374.pdf</a><br>-<br>also on the aspect of purchasing software in the UK, if you are spending UK taxpayers pounds you should be aware that the "Government is explicitly declaring its support for a level playing field between OSS and proprietary software procurement within Government by acknowledging the competitive viability of OSS solutions."<br><br><a href="http://www.ogc.gov.uk/assets/images/OGCOpenSourceSoftwarePolicy.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.ogc.gov.uk/assets/images/OGCOpenSour...</a><br>something I introduced my University to at the board of studies.<br>the report also states<br>"Purchasing Units should question all assumptions about maintenance of the status quo or acceptance of brand leadership or dominance before purchase."<br>and that<br>"Purchasers must satisfy themselves, and Gateway reviewers, that full cognisance has been taken of the potential for such lock-in and that any decision to continue with a proprietary standard can show that it achieves best value for money over the full life cycle."<br>the lock in being a key issue when purchasing proprietary software that in my opinion is oft overlooked in schools.<br><br>None of that is to say that proprietary solutions can't offer the best value for money, just that OSS should always be given a fair hearing! Some interesting points but personally I think that the patent/copyright system is still broken for the 21st century. Henry Mintzberg suggests that big pharma (in the states at least) are not charging based on the cost of development but what the market will bear and that “Much of the upstream research is government subsidized, which means that tax dollars may be converted into profits for pharmaceutical companies.”
This to me seems plain wrong!
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/175/4/374.pdf
-
also on the aspect of purchasing software in the UK, if you are spending UK taxpayers pounds you should be aware that the “Government is explicitly declaring its support for a level playing field between OSS and proprietary software procurement within Government by acknowledging the competitive viability of OSS solutions.”

http://www.ogc.gov.uk/assets/images/OGCOpenSour...
something I introduced my University to at the board of studies.
the report also states
“Purchasing Units should question all assumptions about maintenance of the status quo or acceptance of brand leadership or dominance before purchase.”
and that
“Purchasers must satisfy themselves, and Gateway reviewers, that full cognisance has been taken of the potential for such lock-in and that any decision to continue with a proprietary standard can show that it achieves best value for money over the full life cycle.”
the lock in being a key issue when purchasing proprietary software that in my opinion is oft overlooked in schools.

None of that is to say that proprietary solutions can't offer the best value for money, just that OSS should always be given a fair hearing!

]]>