Re: [Fsfe-uk] QnetiQ study

[ian]

On Sun, 2003-08-24 at 23:39, Paul wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> > > 9. Further studies should be conducted by people competetant to do it
> > > and who actually know what they're on about.
> > 
> > The time for studies is over, there have been many and they can all be
> > interpreted to suit the particular interest so they are largely a waste
> > of time and effort. Better to simply put the money that would have been
> > put into these studies into Open Source development and just sit back
> > and see what happens.
> 
> That would require three things;
> 
> 1. A willingness to do something which would be seen (quite possibly) as
> an act of old labour (the state supporting something instead of it being
> self funding sort of thing)

That is a matter of presentation. The G put £100m a year into E-learing
credits without batting an Eyelid. There are even ways of diverting some
of that money. It just needs a little lateral thought.

> 2. A government with half a brain to see the waste of time, money and
> most importantly, resources in it's current idealogy and thinking

The Gov hasn't got a specific ideology with regard to software, it is
just muddling along with a dated historic system because it doesn't
really understand what to do and in the whole scheme of Gov business its
seen as a small side issue.

> 3. A PM who doesn't have his tongue firmly up BG's arse and is also
> willing to listen to his advisors (a number of which are definately not
> promoting MS)

Its defin*i*tely. I think that spelling definitely with an "a" seems to
be an Internet thing ;-)

Again I think you can get too screwed up by this sort of thing. TB (and
most politicians) get kudos rubbing shoulders with big business. I think
its paranoia to think that there is something special and specific about
Microsoft. The thing is not to waste energy on invective but to do
positive things that under-mine such relationships.

> 
> > You can tell when the Government has no clue about what action to take,
> > they commission studies 
> 
> You're not seriously considering the QnetiQ a true study are you?

Doesn't really matter. I guess that it was probably paid for by public
money and it is likely to have virtually no impact so its a waste of
public money.

> > and procrastinate hoping that someone else will
> > make the decision for them. Fortunately other governments and industry
> > around the world are doing just that.
> 
> There inlies the problem - our Govt is a little Britain one. We can see
> this over our contributiosn and following of Europe. If ever a line of a
> song held for this country it's this "we are the 51st state of the USA"
> (The The, Infected). Without a radical rethink which listens to all
> sides and is not prejudiced by vast wodges of dosh (in either software,
> goods or anything else) from anyone, this will carry on.

*All* countries are ego-centric and all strike up alliances with others.
You can't on the one hand talk of little Britain insularity and then on
the other say we are just the 51st state. In the whole scheme of things
we need good trading relations with both the USA and Europe. The MS
thing is a small piece in a  much bigger jigsaw and it really wouldn't
matter if MS was a German or French company, reducing its power and
influence in the IT sector will be good for Britain. The Gov is a lot
more receptive to that view now than it was two years ago but there is
still some way to go. In the end they will have to come in line with
others, just depends how long, and backing them and the PM into an
entrenched stance will slow the process down rather than speed it up.

So more effective to explain calmly to them that money spent on paper
studies is not as effective as say empirical research through Gov.
sponsored case study approaches than to rant about the evils of MS and
BGs relationship with TB. 
-- 
ian <address@hidden>