NEWS
Microsoft has insisted it did not slash its software prices to encourage Birmingham City Council to abort its Linux project.
Birmingham pulled the plug on its open source desktop project after it found an upgrade to Windows XP was cheaper. The city council had planned to roll out 1,500 Linux PCs across its libraries but in the end converted just 200 PCs.
Industry experts have suggested Microsoft offered Birmingham special discounts to sway the balance in favour of XP. But Microsoft firmly denied these allegations. Asked whether Microsoft had offered special discounts to Birmingham, Nick McGrath, head of platform strategy said: "No, not all. We are in discussions with every single local authority. There is a common buying framework."
Got two seconds?
Make your voice heard - take our latest poll.
McGrath added: "The decision was very much taken by Birmingham."
Birmingham City Council is slightly less clear on this point. When asked whether the council managed to get a better deal from Microsoft as a result of its trial, IT chief Glyn Evans said: "We did not seek a better deal from Microsoft nor was that an objective [stated or unstated] of the project." However, Evans didn't state whether any discount had been received.
Many observers have claimed Microsoft offers inducements to local authorities to stay with Windows if they show a willingness to switch to open source.
Laurent Lachal, senior analyst at Ovum, said: "Microsoft is going out of its way to lower prices to get deals. If it lowers it to the point where it makes no sense to deploy open source, then it is a good deal for the organisation."
Bob Griffiths, international secretary at Socitm, the association for public sector IT professionals which supported the Birmingham project through the Open Source Academy, acknowledged Microsoft had been "involved in negotiations" with the council. He said he was unsure whether Birmingham had gained an advantage through its Linux pilot in bargaining with Microsoft but added that other councils had successfully used that tactic.
Griffiths said: "I'm not sure that's the case with them. But other authorities have claimed advantages."
The London Borough of Newham has been the focus of such suggestions after it reverted to Windows in 2004 after trialling Linux, although it denies the allegations.
Richard Thurston writes for ZDNet UK
Comments
There are 4 comments. Join the discussion
1. anonymous
Quote: "If it lowers it to the point where it makes no sense to deploy open source, then it is a good deal for the organisation."
Does it make "no sense"? Why are people always considering that price is the only advantage of Open Source? What about vendor/service provider independence (even Red Hat is now supported by Red Hat and Oracle for instance, but not only them)? What about the use of Open standards in document formats for example? What about technology lock-in? What about security (for large and well organised Open Source projects)?
Even if you only want to see everything through the "price perspective" all those risks, like technology lock-in, dependence on a single provider, security flaws, have a provisional cost. And believe me this cost is often quite significant. Seeing this requires stopping having short term reasonings and beginning building real strategies. Organisations should perform real assessments on their situations and on the opportunities Open Source can potentially bring to them. It's not only licensing costs savings.
Maybe the Birmingham Council is right. I'm not aware of their specific context. However we'll see how it will manage its mandatory upgrade to Vista due to growing incompatibilities with its new applications and hardware in the next few years.
Did you say a better deal? I wouldn't be so sure about it.
2. Simon
I'm with the anonymous posting above on this - there's more to it being a 'good deal' than price. I believe it was Ruskin who said that "the pain of poor quality will outlast the joy of a cheap price".
The other factor is that it may be a good deal in the short term, I've heard it said of drug dealers that they offer incentives - "the fist fix is free" - so as to hook more customers in the long term. I think that's how Microsoft should be viewed !
3. John R.
I live in Birmingham and - like a lot of local authorities - I wouldn't exactly describe them as visionaries capable of long term strategic thinking.
Obviously a few strings were pulled by Microsoft, and the council are going to stick with something which will turn out to be unsustainable and inherently unstable, not to mention insecure.
Ironic that local authorities are tied to the Government's efficiency agenda, but have a huge blind spot when it comes to IT. Linux is free, MS is not.
That freedom is about much more than cost, but they won't look far beyond those very short term savings.
Of course there are costs associated with training staff and migrating to Linux in the short term (and I mean over a period of about 5 years) but in the long term these would reduce.
4. Richard
Why need "extra training"?
Something is wrong with IT training:
Apparently, people are being trained only to use a particular version of a particular product; rather than being given useful transferable IT skills.
Some IT support staff and specialist users may need training to support "open source" rather than Microsoft products, but normal basic users should hardly notice the difference.
Why do people expect re-training each time their software is upgraded, but welcome the challenge of learning to use their new car?
Should people have to take driving lessons & pass a new driving test each time they change their car?