Home / Blogs / Bill Smith's blog / City in rush to throw money at Microsoft
City in rush to throw money at Microsoft
Evanston city staff will ask aldermen Monday to approve spending nearly $200,000 over the next three years for Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office computer software.
The memo from Business Performance & Technology Division Manager Bruce Slown recommending the purchase calls the software tools from Microsoft "an essential part of almost every function performed by City staff."
But the memo fails to address the growing viability of the open source software movement, which allows governments, businesses and individuals to break free from the monopolistic grip of Microsoft and get the same software functionality for free.
Just last month the European Union's competition commissioner, Neelie Kroes, recommended that businesses and governments use software based on open standards.
In a New York Times article, Kroes was quoted as saying, "I know a smart business decision when I see one -- choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed."
As someone who has used the free Open Office software suite alternative to Microsoft Office for a couple of years now, I'm convinced that it is a fully viable alternative for everyday users of desktop software.
When it comes to using Linux, the open source alternative to the Microsoft Windows operating system on a desktop machine, I have no personal experience, and I'm inclined to accept the view of Wall Street Journal technology columnist Walt Mossberg, who wrote nearly a year ago that while Linux is getting easier to use, its still "not for everyone."
So perhaps the answer is for the city staff to find out what it would cost to just license Windows, and skip the Office applications.
This story is very upsetting to a computer-savvy Evanston taxpayer because, once again, the City is being asked to approve a major expenditure without a proper study of alternatives or competing bids.
I presume the City has a variety of licenses for Windows on individual PC's as well as for servers with client licenses. Further, I presume the City has individual Office licenses. I believe the contract extension would be for future support, updates and "volume" pricing on new licenses. If the City were NOT to renew, they could continue using the licensed versions they now have.
Open Source software offers many alternatives without being an "all-or-nothing" option. Linux servers can take the place of Windows servers with no change apparent to the end user. MS-Exchange can be replaced with another email server, again with little notice on the part of the end user. MS-Office 2003 documents and spreadsheets can be read and written to with Open Office (incompatibility issues involve advanced features such as macros.)
My main point is not that the City should move to Open Source, rather no one has explored alternatives. No one has explored alternatives as a negotiating tool with Microsoft, nor has anyone explored the additional costs should Microsoft declare that the City's computers are too old and need to be upgraded.
The fact that this contract is about to expire and the decision to renew must come quickly means that someone or some department fell asleep at the wheel. The fact that there are alternatives means that this decision to renew does not have to be rushed. If the current IT staff are incapable of exploring these alternatives, then they are not qualified for their jobs and should be replaced.
There are cost-savings to be made, while staying with the Windows system.
Thousands, perhaps millions, of Windows users use OpenOffice.org, which is so much like Microsoft Word that workers should hardly notice the diference.
Workers can go to openoffice.org to try it out right now.
Renewing Windows, but not Office, won't be as expensive.
By the way, Massachusetts made the decision to use only Linux several years ago:
For details, Google "Massachusetts and Linux."
Okay, I use Macintosh as my primary operating system, have used OpenOffice for years, and work on Linux servers all day long. Trust me when I say what you're proposing isn't reasonable.
Everybody knows Microsoft Office. The cost of re-training and lost efficiency is not discussed. Everytime someone saves a document in OO format and send it to a non-City agency where they can't open it, time is wasted. Every incoming employee has to be retrained. Microsoft has synergies with other applications (often but not always other Microsoft offerings) that OO simply can't rival. Hiring for a more unusual skill set is always timely and more expensive on the salary side. Not to mention re-training your entire IT staff, that are probably Microsoft experts by now if not certified.
> Good opportunity to get rid of some deadwood in City government: make Linux a necessary competency
Funny, but also a good way to get rid of competent but not computer-literate people too. There is a difference. You're proposing to saw the tree down to clear deadwood.
Bill you make one point here that I think is more important than windows or LInux -
"As has been the case far too often recently, the council is receiving this Microsoft contract proposal after the old license expired, and with a 30-day extension just days away from running out."
We have no choice but to renew - no one in charged looked for any savings - this department appears to have grown alot over the last few years - given council members have trouble with almost everything they look at I am certain they would be confused about this issue.
The real question is why wasn't this brought up for discussion six months or a year ago, raises the question who is in charge?
I
What exactly does 67k a year buy in Windows software these days and other than open source, what are the alternatives?
It buys software for close to 500 computers. Other than open source, I believe the only alternative would be to replace all the existing computers with Macs and use Apple's software -- which would almost certainly be much more expensive, at least initially.
-- Bill
Open Source is definitely the way to go...and I see no reason why Linux can't be used. [ Good opportunity to get rid of some deadwood in City government: make Linux a necessary competency ]
But my question is: Is the City going to get stuck with Windows Vista, and the office software that comes with it?
The only justification for staying with Windows is that almost everyone is familiar with it - but Office 2007 changes that. If we are going to have to train people to use the new Vista and Office 2007, why not just train them on Open Office and Linux?
We need to save money on software, since we will need the money to build a new Civic Center.
Imagine: a beautiful contemporary Civic Center, perhaps designed by Calatrava or Jahn, with lots of glass and steel, where employees are using open source software. Forget Cicero or Harwood Heights - Evanston will be like Helsinki or Reykjavik!
Post new comment