Continued from page 1
Personally, I don't care whether or not something is open source, closed source, proprietary, GNU or anything else. The software must meet needs of project or it's useless. The Software must be maintainable and have a reasonable promise of future maintenance. It must perform all required functions and as many optional functions as needed. The product must have a good ROI (return on investment) as well.
I've been managing large projects for 25 years, and return on investment is usually part that is missed by most technical people. We look at cost of a product and think, "wow, this is free and this is $425, I'll get free one".
That equation, unfortunately, does not work. The cost of a product must be measured over it's entire lifetime and includes many variables. These include training (teaching people how to use it and keep it going as well as changing it), maintenance, security, hardware, "fit" to requirements, and dozens (if not hundreds) of other things. I've found that once ALL of variables are factored in, Microsoft does not come out as bad as most people would like to think.
Microsoft is being a little heavy handed here, and I'm somewhat surprised that US Government is playing along. I don't see any vital US interests threatened.
However, one must remember that there were no vital US interests threatened in Guatemala in 1950s. There were just Dole banana farms, which were in danger of being taken over by democratic government. So good old president Eisenhower ordered CIA to overthrow that government and replaced it with a much less democratic version, which, of course, was "smart enough" to leave Dole banana farms alone. Don't believe me, read your history books. (This is one of more despicable chapters in American history - aiding in overthrow of a legitimate government so that some banana company would not be inconvenienced.)
Point being government may not in actually have a vital interest at stake, but officials may, or large corporations which have contributed lots of money may as well. This might make government do things which, on face of it, make no sense (and on deeper analysis still don't make any sense).
So am I opposed to Microsoft's attempt to stop Peru? Of course as it is meddling in affairs of another country. Do I understand why it's doing this? Of course. And do I understand why US government is playing along? Sure, it's pretty obvious.
Richard Lowe Jr. is the webmaster of Internet Tips And Secrets at http://www.internet-tips.net - Visit our website any time to read over 1,000 complete FREE articles about how to improve your internet profits, enjoyment and knowledge.