BBC to wean itself off MS "within 3 years."

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Word has reached me that senior execumatives at the Beeb have realised that the MS tax is an unnecessary noose, especially with the new licensing scheme.



The cost of upgrade, which they forced into doing, does not bring that amount of increased productivity. Most staffers just need email (which is just email), web (which is just web) and a word processor (which at the moment, is Word).



To this end, there are senior technologists looking at how to get them out of the situation. It may be the OS, it may just be the productivity software. This is serious shite.



Think about it ... there's 20,000 people at the BBC ... if they adopted a standard, OTHERS who do business would also have to use (say) StarOffice.



Thought you may be interested.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    I've been thinking about this recently and have realised that this will only work if there is an open document format.



    Open/StarOffice, Corel, GoBe Productive, Appleworks etc all have their merits and problems but if they could interoperate 100% (and make a fair stab at MS Office compatibility) then I think many people would switch.



    Unfortunately I am aware of no real movement in this direction. There is the OpenOffice xml stuff but I haven't heard much from them. Anyone know better?
  • Reply 2 of 7
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Just as Apple places a hardware noose around the necks of the faithful, MS does so with software licensing.



    I see Linux. Cheap hardware. Adequate software. The IT dept and sys. admins will have to earn their paychecks, but you need those people anyway. Mac won't get any of this business untill they smarten up on their pricing.
  • Reply 3 of 7
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 4 of 7
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Untill macs ship with a free and fully compatible Office suite (yes than means M$) they wont break this market, ever.



    Now, put a stripped down eMac on a thousand desks, each with a full licence to said Office killer, and you're looking at a deal. Untill then, forget it.
  • Reply 5 of 7
    stimulistimuli Posts: 564member
    Airsluf: I think you think Linux is 'high maintenance' when it is not. This is especially laughable when compared to windows, which is, er, prone to viral infections, major security snafus, the need for Antivirus software, BSODs.



    Moreover, one desktop could be used simultaneously by several people running multiple X sessions. If they wanted to. It's not like web/email/word proc. maxes a 1 ghz box.



    Web browser: Mozilla

    email: Evolution (perhaps w/ Connector for M$ Exchange)

    Office suite: Open/Star Office. Compatible w/ M$ Word doc format. Open is free, Star is cheap. Over time, Open/star office will become nicely integrated into Gnome via GTK widgets, instead of their current custom fugly widgets.



    Total cost: remarkably low.

    Recurring costs: (such as all future upgrades) nothing.

    Hardware cost: Nothing. They already have x86 (obviously) hardware that is more than adequate to run Linux.



    Admin retraining? My guess is that it's the admins/IT boys who suggested the switch, after analysis of cost and labour.But regardless, instead of retraining, why not hire Linux experts, and let go of the XP/NT experts?



    So explain to me how it would be cheaper to switch to Mac?



    [ 08-30-2002: Message edited by: stimuli ]</p>
  • Reply 6 of 7
    [quote]Originally posted by me:

    <strong>Open/StarOffice, Corel, GoBe Productive, Appleworks etc all have their merits and problems but if they could interoperate 100% (and make a fair stab at MS Office compatibility) then I think many people would switch.



    Unfortunately I am aware of no real movement in this direction. There is the OpenOffice xml stuff but I haven't heard much from them. Anyone know better?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26900.html"; target="_blank">the register</a> mentions Sun (and unamed partners--Apple?) attempting to standardise xml data formats through OASIS. If this catches on then it will be a major blow to Microsoft's hegemony and a boost to Apple.



    [ 09-02-2002: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 7
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by stimuli:

    <strong>Airsluf: I think you think Linux is 'high maintenance' when it is not. This is especially laughable when compared to windows, which is, er, prone to viral infections, major security snafus, the need for Antivirus software, BSODs.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Putting Linux or FreeBSD on corporate desktops would be a nightmare for most people. I don't think you realize how big a barrier this is.



    [quote]Moreover, one desktop could be used simultaneously by several people running multiple X sessions. If they wanted to. It's not like web/email/word proc. maxes a 1 ghz box.<hr></blockquote>



    So you're going to load-up the network in the interest of cost savings...hmm...



    [quote]Web browser: Mozilla<hr></blockquote>



    I use Mozilla...pretty annoying how many web-services require IE or Netscape 4.x, huh? Is Netscape 4.x still a crashfest Linux and other UNIX-like platforms? Yes.



    [quote]Office suite: Open/Star Office. Compatible w/ M$ Word doc format. Open is free, Star is cheap. Over time, Open/star office will become nicely integrated into Gnome via GTK widgets, instead of their current custom fugly widgets.<hr></blockquote>



    I haven't used StarOffice or AbiWord in a long time, but the last time I did, both apps could read .doc files, but they couldn't save them. Most of the time I just went with RTF.



    [quote]Total cost: remarkably low.

    Recurring costs: (such as all future upgrades) nothing.

    Hardware cost: Nothing. They already have x86 (obviously) hardware that is more than adequate to run Linux.<hr></blockquote>



    Your time and my time cost money. Inefficiency at any level costs money. People are going to be very inefficient when working with a foreign OS such as Linux. Such a move would be quite inertial...it takes a lot of energy to get the ball rolling.



    Hardware compatibility is an issue. Depending on your job, you may require certain specialized or commodity hardware that is not yet supported or barely supported under anything other than Windows.



    [quote]Admin retraining? My guess is that it's the admins/IT boys who suggested the switch, after analysis of cost and labour.But regardless, instead of retraining, why not hire Linux experts, and let go of the XP/NT experts?<hr></blockquote>



    My guess is that the top-level brass entertained the idea to switch at a morning meeting or over lunch and genuinely thought it would be a no-brainer. It isn't. I think the IT guys are groaning.



    [quote]So explain to me how it would be cheaper to switch to Mac?<hr></blockquote>



    As with Linux, there would be no switch. Both alternatives would have to creep into certain departments and start a domino effect.
Sign In or Register to comment.