According to this
article in ComputerWeekly, Central
Scotland Police, which "pioneered the use of open source, including
Linux desktops," is switching back to Microsoft products.
Here's what I think is important: Open source proponents of all flavors have been trumpeting the "success" of open source for some time, as if the triumph of open source software was established. In fact, they've been trying to leverage the "huge success" of the open source model into other areas.
But the fact is that we're only partway through an experiment on open source. Companies are trying things, abandoning them, trying other things. It's too soon to conclude where open source software ultimately will fit in the overall software industry.
At IPI, we've never been "opposed" to open source software. Skeptical, yes, about the long-term viability of the model apart from a few niche markets, but not opposed. Our point all along has been that open source has yet to really prove itself able to deliver mass-market products. This was the point of our publication in 2004--perhaps the hype of open source has exceeded the reality, and that it is utterly inappropriate to implement policies that demand open source purchasing, or that give favorable treatment to open source solutions.
I still think we're right to be skeptical that the open source model is somehow inherently superior to the proprietary model. And since we can't count on pro-open source or IP skeptic sources to tell us when customers abandon open source and switch back to proprietary solutions, we'll do our best to make note of such switches at IPBlog.
Central Scotland Police has now signed a three-year enterprise agreement with Microsoft. Nick McGrath, head of platform strategy for Microsoft said the company had offered no special inducements for the force to switch platforms.
The company had not provided free consultancy services to the police, as they did two years ago to Newham Council in east London, where a trial of open source technology was taking place.
The police signed a contract under a standard Office of Government Commerce framework agreement, with Microsoft offering the force advice on how to get the best value under the framework agreement, said McGrath.
“Central Scotland Police estimates that it could save 30% on IT maintenance costs and 25% of IT staff’s time by using Microsoft technology,” he added.
Here's what I think is important: Open source proponents of all flavors have been trumpeting the "success" of open source for some time, as if the triumph of open source software was established. In fact, they've been trying to leverage the "huge success" of the open source model into other areas.
But the fact is that we're only partway through an experiment on open source. Companies are trying things, abandoning them, trying other things. It's too soon to conclude where open source software ultimately will fit in the overall software industry.
At IPI, we've never been "opposed" to open source software. Skeptical, yes, about the long-term viability of the model apart from a few niche markets, but not opposed. Our point all along has been that open source has yet to really prove itself able to deliver mass-market products. This was the point of our publication in 2004--perhaps the hype of open source has exceeded the reality, and that it is utterly inappropriate to implement policies that demand open source purchasing, or that give favorable treatment to open source solutions.
I still think we're right to be skeptical that the open source model is somehow inherently superior to the proprietary model. And since we can't count on pro-open source or IP skeptic sources to tell us when customers abandon open source and switch back to proprietary solutions, we'll do our best to make note of such switches at IPBlog.