Which Gov. Dept. is in charge of paying for software licenses?

zing zong

Hi all

I am hoping to find out if anybody knows which department (if it is down to just one) that would be involved in the payment for software licenses for all government computers (also schools, HSE etc)

Reading recently how more and more governments are moving toward free software instead of windows (Munich for example saved 4 million this year alone) it would make sense for us to move in this direction also.

any ideas?

Thanks

partyatmygaff

I'd say each particular public service takes care of its own software licensing.

If you're thinking of trying to convince the government to migrate to Linux the chances of it occurring are slim. Not because there's anything wrong with Linux but because the cost and downtime that'd be incurred in retraining thousands of staff is prohibitive. That and they probably use custom software solutions that are designed for Windows.

n97 mini

It's not centralised.

My organisation was audited by MS and it was found that we were paying for approximately twice the amount of licences that we were using.

There is room for a lot of progress.

n97 mini

I should also add that the "if we don't spend the money this year we'll lose it next year" attitude still prevails. For example I was asked did I want the latest and greatest laptop as we had €1m unspent in the IT budget. It doesn't happen very often but I declined on the basis that I didn't use the one I already had.

zing zong

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'd say each particular public service takes care of its own software licensing.

If you're thinking of trying to convince the government to migrate to Linux the chances of it occurring are slim. Not because there's anything wrong with Linux but because the cost and downtime that'd be incurred in retraining thousands of staff is prohibitive. That and they probably use custom software solutions that are designed for Windows.

I hear ya, and would have said exactly the same before, but Iceland, Germany, France (I'll get back with the full list later) have done so already, so all that needs to be done is follow the process already proven to work by them.

as for the cost of retraining, I actually think this is a bit of a cop out, because if you can use windows in the first instance you can use them all (not in the admin sense, i mean in the general UI)

people didn't need training when they bought Macs, IPhones and android phones, so in that sense it should be relatively painless. (also it needn't be all at once, gradual roll out would be great)

also you may have a point about the custom software, but surely whatever they are using in France, Germany etc would be comparable or better no?

zing zong

n97 mini wrote: »

I should also add that the "if we don't spend the money this year we'll lose it next year" attitude still prevails. For example I was asked did I want the latest and greatest laptop as we had €1m unspent in the IT budget. It doesn't happen very often but I declined on the basis that I didn't use the one I already had.

A Family friend in the HSE told me a similar story, can't say i'm happy about it, and im sure its widespread

gibo_ie

its all approved centrally through CMOD in the Dept of Finance, though each department has their own link to purchasing once a need exists.
They pretty much all have an EA....

markpb

zing zong wrote: »

as for the cost of retraining, I actually think this is a bit of a cop out, because if you can use windows in the first instance you can use them all (not in the admin sense, i mean in the general UI)

It might seem like a cop-out but it's true - if you've used the same software for years, there's definitely going to be a need for re-training. You can't expect everyone to go back to work tomorrow and use Linux and Open Office instantly, especially less technical users.

also you may have a point about the custom software, but surely whatever they are using in France, Germany etc would be comparable or better no?

If a department has a custom LOB application (for example, ROS), there's unlikely to be another piece of software written in France or Germany which does exactly the same because the underlying processes are completely different.

Also, why do you assume they'd be better? Are the French civil service renowned for their expertise at developing or purchasing quality custom software?

Sleepy

Most buy in their own right. The likes of the Local Government Computer Services Board buy licenses for certain software packages for the various local authorities but they can and do buy some packages on their own behalf.

It's a nonsense of a situation but one I believe they are trying to work on. I'm aware of more than one review of software licensing which has resulted in savings and there's definitely been renegotiations of support contracts over the past 4 years.

zing zong

gibo_ie wrote: »

its all approved centrally through CMOD in the Dept of Finance, though each department has their own link to purchasing once a need exists.
They pretty much all have an EA....

I guess the Dept. of Finance can set the standard the rest would have to follow would they?

Sleepy

zing zong wrote: »

as for the cost of retraining, I actually think this is a bit of a cop out, because if you can use windows in the first instance you can use them all (not in the admin sense, i mean in the general UI)

people didn't need training when they bought Macs, IPhones and android phones, so in that sense it should be relatively painless. (also it needn't be all at once, gradual roll out would be great)

You have no idea how seriously you're over-estimating the calibre of much of our public servants. I know we have plenty of public sector workers who could buy and sell me when it comes to computers and technology but there's more than a significant number of them who are barely computer literate. It's hardly qualitative research but I've personally been the person in the room explaining something to someone for the fifth time that my 6 year old step-son would have gotten on the first explanation. I've been the trainer, I've been the software implementer who understands the business process better than the person tasked with doing it monday to friday and the support consultant wondering how the hell an individual still needs to be talked through a 6 step process after a year of running it on a monthly basis. These people can't be fired for incompetence, made redundant or re-trained and while not every PS worker is one of them, they exist in significant numbers.

also you may have a point about the custom software, but surely whatever they are using in France, Germany etc would be comparable or better no?

Comparable or better, maybe. In compliance with, or capable of being tailored to Irish legislation or public accounting requirements? Not without huge re-development, no.

You'd also have the re-train/re-place the IT support staff who'd be MS rather than *nix trained/certified.

In short, if we were creating the IT infrastructure in a green-field site, Open Source would almost certainly be the way to go. In an ecosystem where millions has already been invested in tailoring MS software to fit, the Return on Investment simply isn't there.

zing zong

markpb wrote: »

It might seem like a cop-out but it's true - if you've used the same software for years, there's definitely going to be a need for re-training. You can't expect everyone to go back to work tomorrow and use Linux and Open Office instantly, especially less technical users.

I'm not saying there won't be a need for re-training, but I still think it should be relatively painless, using the open office example, "where "print" was here in office, its now here in open office" They aren't really that wildly different, and people can get used to the change quickly. In all fairness, its more about something being unfamiliar for a brief time rather than being unusable. also the end users are hardly idiots, and any cost would be offset by the savings made.

also, Linux OS's works better for longer on older hardware so less need to upgrade as often or quickly, more money saved

markpb wrote: »

If a department has a custom LOB application (for example, ROS), there's unlikely to be another piece of software written in France or Germany which does exactly the same because the underlying processes are completely different.

very fair point, however no reason why we can have our own software written, it isn't as if we haven't the capable programmers

markpb wrote: »

Also, why do you assume they'd be better? Are the French civil service renowned for their expertise at developing or purchasing quality custom software?

I'm not saying that at all, what i am making an assumption about is that they are better funded, so I would assume would be better resourced and *may* have similar or better software for our needs. either way it doesn't matter, we can have our own written/ported

kippy

Change to open source software, that'll solve the countries problems.
Not even close.

As well as the issues already mentioned here (cost of retraining, support of said software, interoperability with existing systems and software, implementation etc etc) there are also less obvious reasons why the whole state may chose not to move to an "open source" platform. (The number of jobs Microsoft provides in this country being one such reason amoung others)

There is definitely money to be saved on software licensing and as already stated renegotiating has happened a lot in the past few years, as well as the merging of departments for per seat licensing purposes and indeed reviews of licensing compliance in general.

You'll also find a number of reports (some based around some departments in Germany strangely enough) and in the Scandinavian countries which outline the issues that can happen when you change from paid to open source software, indeed some of these departments moved back again a number of years later once Microsoft came back with improved licensing terms. All the chopping and changing cost time and money.


Zing zong, the retraining aspect is a real issue for 90% of the staff.

zing zong

Sleepy wrote: »

Comparable or better, maybe. In compliance with, or capable of being tailored to Irish legislation or public accounting requirements? Not without huge re-development, no.

You'd also have the re-train/re-place the IT support staff who'd be MS rather than *nix trained/certified.

In short, if we were creating the IT infrastructure in a green-field site, Open Source would almost certainly be the way to go. In an ecosystem where millions has already been invested in tailoring MS software to fit, the Return on Investment simply isn't there.

yes Im sure you would have to replace/retrain the IT staff, but isn't that just the nature of life, things change, and if the organisation changes how it operates the staff have to be retrained, happens all the time and the savings *even* with down-time and retraining is millions, I cant really see a downside?

also several EU countries (including Germany, who in all honesty would have a better track record in doing this kind of thing, in my opinion) and local Govts. have already gone down this route, I don't think they would have if the cost/risk/return on investment wasn't right?

seithon

As someone who's working in a "work bridge" job with a government group in IT I'd love to know that too... It's scary how badly run this stuff is.

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

yes Im sure you would have to replace/retrain the IT staff, but isn't that just the nature of life, things change, and if the organisation changes how it operates the staff have to be retrained, happens all the time and the savings *even* with down-time and retraining is millions, I cant really see a downside?

also several EU countries (including Germany, who in all honesty would have a better track record in doing this kind of thing, in my opinion) and local Govts. have already gone down this route, I don't think they would have if the cost/risk/return on investment wasn't right?

Have you seen the cost of "Open source" specialists?

There are major downsides, as the Germans themselves have found:
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/german-open-source-experiment-things-not-going-plan

pawrick

Seems like an area that the NPS (National Procurement Agency) should be involved in to coordinate the needs for all depts.

Many have a mentality of re inventing the wheel for each task.

One of the problems however was that when decentralisation happened they lost a lot of the people skilled in that area, which in turn I imagine set all projects back IT included.

Sleepy

You missed my point:

Many of the staff are not re-trainable and these people cannot be replaced.

The cost of customising OS software to be fit for purpose would be astronomical. WINE only works with some software. Hundreds of millions have already been spent implementing and customising the ERP and HR systems we have in place in our public bodies. You'd need to spend millions to implement and customise the OS software you're proposing just to get to the point where we're already at.

Countries don't just run on desktop OS's and Office applications.

kippy

Id like to add, there is a place for centralised IT within the civil/public services (in some areas) and indeed a place for a government "cloud" as well.
Already there are "some" areas semi-centralised (networks - to some extent) but there's a lot more that could go that way.

zing zong

kippy wrote: »

Zing zong, the retraining aspect is a real issue for 90% of the staff.

I can't say that I have any first hand info, but I really think the retraining issue is being overstated.

they way i see it is, even after all the obstacles initially, in the end it saves million no matter how you look at it, I really think it should be looked into

also, as for lost Microsoft jobs, how many do they employ to begin with? its not a little, but it isn't all that many in the scheme of things either. jobs lost surely its not comparable to millions saved, which could be reinvested in indigenous IT sector?

most cloud services, which many believe is the future of IT is Linux based, Google and face book for example use Linux, as do Pixar etc etc, and android for phones is Linux based, so theres plenty for our IT sector workers to get into?

markpb

zing zong wrote: »

yes Im sure you would have to replace/retrain the IT staff, but isn't that just the nature of life, things change, and if the organisation changes how it operates the staff have to be retrained, happens all the time and the savings *even* with down-time and retraining is millions, I cant really see a downside?

Throwing away all your sysadmins because you're moving to Linux means you're losing all the knowledge that they have about how your business works so that's a non-starter. It would also cost you millions in redundancies but that's beside the point.

Retraining them is more likely but I think you're underestimating the scale of the challenge. First you have to retrain all your sysadmins in Linux, Open Office, Open DNS, Postfix, etc. Then you have to rebuild your network infrastructure using those technologies. You can't do that overnight so you need twice the hardware, at least temporarily. During that time, you'll have twice the support costs (not just financial costs). When you're done, you'll have a network which consists of free software but which required you to spend a fortune retraining your IT staff and you'll probably have paid for support for some of that software (how do you think Redhat got so rich?) so the pain will be incredibly while the gain will be small, at least in the short term.

I'm not saying it's impossible, clearly it's not. I think people think it's easy cause it's just software and the alternative is free.

zing zong wrote: »

I can't say that I have any first hand info, but I really think the retraining issue is being overstated.

I did IT support for a large insurance company several years ago. Every monday morning, we'd spent hours fielding calls from staff who couldn't remember their password from the previous Friday. Every Monday during the summer, the call load would double because staff would come back from holidays and have forgotten their username (eg jsmith). This is no reflection on those people - they just weren't great with computers. If they had trouble with that, how do you think they'd get on if you replaced literally everything they used to do their jobs?

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

I can't say that I have any first hand info, but I really think the retraining issue is being overstated.

they way i see it is, even after all the obstacles initially, in the end it saves million no matter how you look at it, I really think it should be looked into

also, as for lost Microsoft jobs, how many do they employ to begin with? its not a little, but it isn't all that many in the scheme of things either. jobs lost surely its not comparable to millions saved, which could be reinvested in indigenous IT sector?

most cloud services, which many believe is the future of IT is Linux based, Google and face book for example use Linux, as do Pixar etc etc, and android for phones is Linux based, so theres plenty for our IT sector workers to get into?

Look at any of the reports that go into detail about open source software adoption - training and/or perception are one of the biggest barriers to it, followed by hardware operability, support, interoperability with other systems.
Im just making the point that when it comes to government, there are many indirect factors that come into decision making and I have no doubt that the revenue (not just jobs) that Microsoft put through this country is a big factor in these decisions.
The actual implementation of a desktop/enterprise architecture would take ages and cost massive amounts of money, especially when not starting from a greenfield site. There are very very few specialists in open source software out there (they cost a lot to hire in) while there are far more windows ones.
I do believe that where appropriate, opensource software should be investigated and I am sure it is, however there are massive costs involved in transition and ongoing from that.

mathepac

Then there's the unions.

"Comrades, your employer thinks they can change the light switches from standard to flourescent ones that glow in the dark without your agreement (the Croker blackmail cave-in notwithstanding). They argue this will make it easier to find the switches on dark winter mornings.

We believe that this change requires extensive retraining from a functionality as well as from a health and safety perspective for each of our members - two weeks training per member plus a post-training re-skilling allowance, payable retrospectively to the date the original light switches were installed as our members were working with sub-optimal technology.

If the Government insists on this change and unless they agree to our demands, we will continue to work in the dark.

Thank youse brothers and sisters and in-betweeners."

Then of course there's Micro$soft. Are they likely to pull out if Inda & Co switch from Windoze? Will they shift to China with their DVD-in-a-box operation and save billions?

zing zong

Sleepy wrote: »

You missed my point:

Many of the staff are not re-trainable and these people cannot be replaced.

The cost of customising OS software to be fit for purpose would be astronomical. WINE only works with some software. Hundreds of millions have already been spent implementing and customising the ERP and HR systems we have in place in our public bodies. You'd need to spend millions to implement and customise the OS software you're proposing just to get to the point where we're already at.

Countries don't just run on desktop OS's and Office applications.

but using WINE would still be missing the point because legally you would still have to pay for the software license (as an aside, im using office 2010 flawlessly in wine ) what im am saying is to replace it all

Im fully aware its not just about desktop OS's and office apps, but if several other large EU countries are doing, we can simply, by and large, just use whatever they are using.


TLDR; At the end of the day, is initial cost and retraining and rewriting certain applications not worth saving millions of tax euros every year *forever* that can be reinvested in Irish owned/Irish run IT sector jobs?? thats the big picture really

partyatmygaff

zing zong wrote: »

TLDR; At the end of the day, is initial cost and retraining and rewriting certain applications not worth saving millions of tax euros every year *forever* that can be reinvested in Irish owned/Irish run IT sector jobs?? thats the big picture really

We can't really afford the initial costs and there's also the problem of trying to appease Microsoft. We need them more than they need us.

zing zong

markpb wrote: »

Retraining them is more likely but I think you're underestimating the scale of the challenge. First you have to retrain all your sysadmins in Linux, Open Office, Open DNS, Postfix, etc. Then you have to rebuild your network infrastructure using those technologies. You can't do that overnight so you need twice the hardware, at least temporarily. During that time, you'll have twice the support costs (not just financial costs). When you're done, you'll have a network which consists of free software but which required you to spend a fortune retraining your IT staff and you'll probably have paid for support for some of that software (how do you think Redhat got so rich?) so the pain will be incredibly while the gain will be small, at least in the short term.

I'm not saying it's impossible, clearly it's not. I think people think it's easy cause it's just software and the alternative is free.

I can't argue with any of this except that this is all short-term hassle/expense, millions are still being saved no matter what in the long term and thats more important don't you agree?

markpb wrote: »

I did IT support for a large insurance company several years ago. Every monday morning, we'd spent hours fielding calls from staff who couldn't remember their password from the previous Friday. Every Monday during the summer, the call load would double because staff would come back from holidays and have forgotten their username (eg jsmith). This is no reflection on those people - they just weren't great with computers. If they had trouble with that, how do you think they'd get on if you replaced literally everything they used to do their jobs?

This is really an issue for HR though no? maybe they should employ staff with a bit more cop on, who might make a note of their log on credentials at some point (locked away safely obiously )

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

but using WINE would still be missing the point because legally you would still have to pay for the software license (as an aside, im using office 2010 flawlessly in wine ) what im am saying is to replace it all

Im fully aware its not just about desktop OS's and office apps, but if several other large EU countries are doing, we can simply, by and large, just use whatever they are using.


TLDR; At the end of the day, is initial cost and retraining and rewriting certain applications not worth saving millions of tax euros every year *forever* that can be reinvested in Irish owned/Irish run IT sector jobs?? thats the big picture really

It's not at all the big picture. Its the picture from the perspective of someone who has absolutely no experience in working in an enterprise environment, either public or private sector. I've worked in both, and in some of the biggest organisations nationally and internationally. Neither ran their entire enterprise on open source. Some may have ran certain areas (Webservers, firewalls) but NONE ran the whole shebang on open source.

If open source is THAT big of a cost saving wouldnt EVERY major player in the private sector be running it all over the shop?

Its not the complete answer, its part of the answer in some cases, but there are many issues to overcome.

The costs of rewriting software (you've obviously no idea of the cost of rewriting major applications), training (no idea of the cost of training either), and downtime.

zing zong

mathepac wrote: »

Then there's the unions.

"Comrades, your employer thinks they can change the light switches from standard to flourescent ones that glow in the dark without your agreement (the Croker blackmail cave-in notwithstanding). They argue this will make it easier to find the switches on dark winter mornings.

We believe that this change requires extensive retraining from a functionality as well as from a health and safety perspective for each of our members - two weeks training per member plus a post-training re-skilling allowance, payable retrospectively to the date the original light switches were installed as our members were working with sub-optimal technology.

If the Government insists on this change and unless they agree to our demands, we will continue to work in the dark.

Thank youse brothers and sisters and in-betweeners."

Then of course there's Micro$soft. Are they likely to pull out if Inda & Co switch from Windoze? Will they shift to China with their DVD-in-a-box operation and save billions?

oh don't get me started on those guys!!!!

MadsL

A lot of posters here are missing the point that MS provide a lot of 'free' training through their Software Assurance programme. This equally provides jobs for 3rd Party companies providing licenced MS training.

Open Source carries hidden costs sometimes..not the least is having to pay for training. There is a much wider pool of expertise in MS systems too. I'm not convinced the Open Source up-front savings carry through the TCO calculations in many cases.

zing zong

partyatmygaff wrote: »

We can't really afford the initial costs and there's also the problem of trying to appease Microsoft. We need them more than they need us.

can't say i agree, they are here first and foremost for our shady "double-irish" tax system, which saves them millions if not billions, same goes for google etc, they won't leave I assure you

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

can't say i agree, they are here first and foremost for our shady "double-irish" tax system, which saves them millions if not billions, same goes for google etc, they won't leave I assure you

How solid is that assurance?
And what is so shady about the tax system, it is pretty transparent and 80 percent of the reason a lot of other FDA happens here.

zing zong

kippy wrote: »

It's not at all the big picture. Its the picture from the perspective of someone who has absolutely no experience in working in an enterprise environment, either public or private sector. I've worked in both, and in some of the biggest organisations nationally and internationally. Neither ran their entire enterprise on open source. Some may have ran certain areas (Webservers, firewalls) but NONE ran the whole shebang on open source.

If open source is THAT big of a cost saving wouldnt EVERY major player in the private sector be running it all over the shop?

Its not the complete answer, its part of the answer in some cases, but there are many issues to overcome.

The costs of rewriting software (you've obviously no idea of the cost of rewriting major applications), training (no idea of the cost of training either), and downtime.

you have made alot of assumptions about me here I assure you while I'm no sys admin, I'm not *entirely* clueless about all of this cheers

I agree its not the full solution, but money saved is money saved is money saved

and just to be clear, I'm not some kind of ideological Linux evangelist, all I care about is saving us tax money being pissed away which could be reinvested into Irish industry

everything you point out as obstacles are short term, you have to agree

and finally, just because something would be difficult *at the start* is no reason to not do it if it would be of massive benefit in the long term, and that is the main and most important point, wouldn't you agree?

the_syco

n97 mini wrote: »

I should also add that the "if we don't spend the money this year we'll lose it next year" attitude still prevails.

I'll blame the red tape that they probably have to go through to buy anything.

The way around it? Never spend less than the most they can spend.

markpb

zing zong wrote: »

I can't argue with any of this except that this is all short-term hassle/expense, millions are still being saved no matter what in the long term and thats more important don't you agree?

It depends on how much it costs you in the short term. Doing all that and having all your LOB applications re-written could run into tens of millions for a large public sector department. Coupled with the problems it will cause during the transition, it might not be worthwhile, even in the medium to long term.

Look at the fuss that was (rightly) kicked up when the medical card issuing system was changed. Staff were being re-trained, new processes were being put in place and meanwhile, the time to get a new card ran to months. People were unable to get their medication because of a public sector process change.

This is really an issue for HR though no? maybe they should employ staff with a bit more cop on, who might make a note of their log on credentials at some point (locked away safely obiously )

You're mistaking IT proficiency as a requirement to do work but it wasn't for them and it isn't for lots of people. Those people were perfectly capable of doing their jobs, they were just poor at computers. Why hire more expensive IT proficient people when it makes no difference to their output?

Also advocating that people write down their usernames and passwords is crazy. Would you be happy if the staff in Revenue were doing that?

zing zong

kippy wrote: »

How solid is that assurance?
And what is so shady about the tax system, it is pretty transparent and 80 percent of the reason a lot of other FDA happens here.

you will understand if I would rather not explain what I do for a living, but if you have a bit of time, have a look online about the double-irish (sometimes called dutch sandwhich) tax arrangement, this is one of the bigger reasons we get so much FDI (the reason is rarely the 12.5% corporation tax for the larger organisations)

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

you have made alot of assumptions about me here I assure you while I'm no sys admin, I'm not *entirely* clueless about all of this cheers

I agree its not the full solution, but money saved is money saved is money saved

and just to be clear, I'm not some kind of ideological Linux evangelist, all I care about is saving us tax money being pissed away which could be reinvested into Irish industry

everything you point out as obstacles are short term, you have to agree

and finally, just because something would be difficult *at the start* is no reason to not do it if it would be of massive benefit in the long term, and that is the main and most important point, wouldn't you agree?

1. You have no idea of the money involved (neither do I) I would suggest the money spent on software licensing in the government area is nowhere near as expensive as you envisage.
2. You have no idea of training costs (I do)
3. You have no idea of the amount of software that would need to be rewritten and the amount of data that would need to be ported.
4. You have no idea of the skillset required and lack thereoff of people who can a. rewrite the software, b. set up and maintain systems of this nature.
5. You have absolutely no idea of the knock on effects to private industry (microsoft and associated companies, third party support providers)

I believe the costs involved, direct and indirect, or changing totally to open source from existing systems would be astronomical, many times the cost of annual license fees, and what happens at the end or in five years time? What happens if the open source software model changes, the open source software that was picked for various functions becomes defunct?
There are ongoing costs associated with open source, hiring anyone into an organisation will be more difficult, and indeed IT Support workers will require more money to come into the organisation.
Look at the example I gave above of a major rethink of opensource in germany, ask yourself why opensource for everything in the private sector, even across europe. Despite your claims otherwise, opensource is only used in very few governments, and no government is totally opensource. There are reasons for this.

zing zong

markpb wrote: »

You're mistaking IT proficiency as a requirement to do work but it wasn't for them and it isn't for lots of people. Those people were perfectly capable of doing their jobs, they were just poor at computers. Why hire more expensive IT proficient people when it makes no difference?

Also advocating that people write down their usernames and passwords is crazy. Would you be happy if the staff in Revenue were doing that?

No I'm not, if large amounts of staff are constantly forgetting their logons (which they enter daily!!!!) there is definitely issues with the hiring process

also, did you miss the part where i said "locked away safely" with a big smiley face so of course I wouldn't want the staff at the revenue writing down their passwords

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

you will understand if I would rather not explain what I do for a living, but if you have a bit of time, have a look online about the double-irish (sometimes called dutch sandwhich) tax arrangement, this is one of the bigger reasons we get so much FDI (the reason is rarely the 12.5% corporation tax for the larger organisations)

Looks fairly transparent and legal to me......

zing zong

kippy wrote: »

1. You have no idea of the money involved (neither do I) I would suggest the money spent on software licensing in the government area is nowhere near as expensive as you envisage.
2. You have no idea of training costs (I do)
3. You have no idea of the amount of software that would need to be rewritten and the amount of data that would need to be ported.
4. You have no idea of the skillset required and lack thereoff of people who can a. rewrite the software, b. set up and maintain systems of this nature.
5. You have absolutely no idea of the knock on effects to private industry (microsoft and associated companies, third party support providers)

I believe the costs involved, direct and indirect, or changing totally to open source from existing systems would be astronomical, many times the cost of annual license fees, and what happens at the end or in five years time? What happens if the open source software model changes, the open source software that was picked for various functions becomes defunct?
There are ongoing costs associated with open source, hiring anyone into an organisation will be more difficult, and indeed IT Support workers will require more money to come into the organisation.
Look at the example I gave above of a major rethink of opensource in germany, ask yourself why opensource for everything in the private sector, even across europe. Despite your claims otherwise, opensource is only used in very few governments, and no government is totally opensource. There are reasons for this.

I already agreed that opensource may not be the answer 100% of the time, but even if it was utilised, as much as possible, and over time, then it would bring massive savings


look, at the end of the day, paying no license is cheaper than paying for a license no matter how you look at it, and that is always good for the tax payer

partyatmygaff

zing zong wrote: »

ok, at the end of the day, paying no license is cheaper than paying for a license no matter how you look at it, and that is always good for the tax payer

But you have to remember that license costs aren't the only costs when it comes to enterprise software. In fact, it's probably not even the biggest cost most of the time.

zing zong

kippy wrote: »

Looks fairly transparent and legal to me......

i didn't say it was illegal, its isn't (the same way as TDs making outrageous expense claims isn't strictly illegal) but its far from transparent, very very far...

the reason I mention it at all is to explain that if the entire country went open-source over night, it wouldn't scare away Microsoft, they stay for the tax break, that simple

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

I already agreed that opensource may not be the answer 100% of the time, but even if it was utilised, as much as possible, and over time, then it would bring massive savings


look, at the end of the day, paying no license is cheaper than paying for a license no matter how you look at it, and that is always good for the tax payer

But the cost to get to that point and indeed the ongoing cost of not paying a license fee is not zero.

I have a really old car. Costs me about 600 quid a year on tax. And running cost per annum are pretty low.
I wanted to go out and get a car that costs me 153 a year to run. It would cost me about 8K to get a car similiar to my own that would cost me 153 a year in tax, but to do that I have to get a car that I have no idea of the history of, no idea what the goverment are going to do with the taxband of and which will increase my servicing costs and insurance.
Should I get the new car because I save 450 odd per year on tax for the next X years?

zing zong

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But you have to remember that license costs aren't the only costs when it comes to enterprise software. In fact, it's probably not even the biggest cost most of the time.

I agree, but right now its license costs PLUS support

with opensource the cost is just support (after the initial changeover cost of course)

so in the long term, yes its cheaper, and better for our pockets

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

i didn't say it was illegal, its isn't (the same way as TDs making outrageous expense claims isn't strictly illegal) but its far from transparent, very very far...

the reason I mention it at all is to explain that if the entire country went open-source over night, it wouldn't scare away Microsoft, they stay for the tax break, that simple

You said shady. If it were that shady I doubt the EU would let it slide (the US either for that matter)
The whole thing is explained on numerous sites out there. I dont see what it has to do with TD's expenses (some were fradualent, just never got prosecuted but thats a different thread)
It would make the IDA's position worse than if we stuck with them for government.

zing zong

kippy wrote: »

But the cost to get to that point and indeed the ongoing cost of not paying a license fee is not zero.

I have a really old car. Costs me about 600 quid a year on tax. And running cost per annum are pretty low.
I wanted to go out and get a car that costs me 153 a year to run. It would cost me about 8K to get a car similiar to my own that would cost me 153 a year in tax, but to do that I have to get a car that I have no idea of the history of, no idea what the goverment are going to do with the taxband of and which will increase my servicing costs and insurance.
Should I get the new car because I save 450 odd per year on tax for the next X years?

the short answer is of course yes

the short term initial high cost is offset by the savings over X amount of years,

what you are describing is known as throwing good money away after bad, meaning we spent so much on the system already so we may as well keep pissing money away because it was so expensive to begin with

thats not remotely prudent

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

the short answer is of course yes

the short term initial high cost is offset by the savings over X amount of years,

what you are describing is known as throwing good money away after bad, meaning we spent so much on the system already so we may as well keep pissing money away because it was so expensive to begin with

thats not remotely prudent

So I should spend 8K on a car that will save me 450 per year but involve increased running costs.
That my friend, is why this country is fcuked.

zing zong

kippy wrote: »

You said shady. If it were that shady I doubt the EU would let it slide (the US either for that matter)
The whole thing is explained on numerous sites out there. I dont see what it has to do with TD's expenses (some were fradualent, just never got prosecuted but thats a different thread)
It would make the IDA's position worse than if we stuck with them for government.

it IS shady, and also the US *have* kicked up a fuss

I don't want to derail this thread speaking about shady tax practices, but honestly, have a read around when you have the time, it has mad *a lot* of people unhappy, especially the US

kippy

zing zong wrote: »

it IS shady, and also the US *have* kicked up a fuss

I don't want to derail this thread speaking about shady tax practices, but honestly, have a read around when you have the time, it has mad *a lot* of people unhappy, especially the US

The US are never happy when their economy is in the sh1tter.
Wont mention this again as the thread will go off course.

zing zong

kippy wrote: »

The US are never happy when their economy is in the sh1tter.
Wont mention this again as the thread will go off course.

here is one example from bloomberg, granted its more about google, but none the less, they saved Billions, with a big B!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html

and if I recall, they actually pay 20% here, not 12.5%, so it aint the corporate tax rate which keeps them here, its the "Double-Irish"

hognef

zing zong wrote: »

partyatmygaff wrote: »

But you have to remember that license costs aren't the only costs when it comes to enterprise software. In fact, it's probably not even the biggest cost most of the time.

I agree, but right now its license costs PLUS support

with opensource the cost is just support (after the initial changeover cost of course)

so in the long term, yes its cheaper, and better for our pockets

You're completely missing the idea that support of open source software might be (and probably is) more expensive than support of commercial software. Open is not the same as free - how do you think open source developers make money? They just use a different model - small upfront costs, larger add-on costs. A bit like Ryanair, really - certainly not always the cheapest, definitely not if you want some extras. If you don't know the full story, it's easy to fall for it.

MadsL

zing zong wrote: »

also, did you miss the part where i said "locked away safely" with a big smiley face so of course I wouldn't want the staff at the revenue writing down their passwords

Smiley face or not the IT Dept at Revenue is one of the most forward-thinking and competent in the PS and meets many IT International standards including ISO 27001 and ISO 20000-1 and Ireland's first BS 25999 business continuity management (BCM) certification

http://www.siliconrepublic.com/business/item/15374-revenue-commissioners-site

http://www.certificationeurope.com/upload/BS%2025999%20Revenue%20Commissioners%20Case%20Study.pdf