A Public Funded "Microsoft Shop?" 490
An anonymous reader writes "I work at a public hospital in the computer / technical department and (amongst others) was recently outraged by an email that was sent around our department: '(XXXX) District Health Board — Information Services is strategically a Microsoft shop and when talking to staff / customers we are to support this strategy. I no longer want to see comments promoting other Operating Systems.' We have also been told to remove Firefox found on anyone's computer unless they have specific authorisation from management to have it installed under special circumstances. Now, I could somewhat understand this if I was working in a company that sold and promoted the use of Microsoft software for financial gain, but I work in the publicly / government funded health system. Several of the IT big-wigs at the DHB are seemingly blindly pro-Microsoft and seem all too quick to shrug off other, perhaps more efficient alternatives. As a taxpayer, I want nothing more than to see our health systems improve and run more efficiently. I am not foolish enough to say all our problems would be solved overnight by changing away from Microsoft's infrastructure, but I am convinced that if we took less than half the money we spend on licensing Microsoft's software alone and invested that in training users for an open source system, we would be far better off in the long run. I would very much like to hear Slashdot's ideas / opinions on this 'Strategic Direction' and the silencing of our technical opinions."
What are you looking for, really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, I'm not much of a MS fan either, but I just don't see what it is you really want.
Take it to the board (Score:4, Insightful)
If the hospital is tax payer funded, then you have every right as a taxpayer to take this memo to the board.
I would suggest that you gather a number of like minded taxpayers (and voters) and make a visit to the board to explain your stance.
You might want to do some research and find that your IT director got a free beer (golf trip) out of this. Fodder for the meeting.
Your management (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you asked why? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's entirely possible they have a good (depending on viewpoint) reason for this beyond your implication of shilling for MS.
The Gamble (Score:4, Insightful)
I find myself in similar situations every day, where I see a lot of inefficient and wasteful decisions and policies.
The thing is, you have to choose your battles. Ask yourself a brutally realistic question: Do you think you can make a difference? Is there any chance at all that you could change someone's mind about this?
The bad news is, probably not. And if you're not willing to work hard for it, you're really better off just sucking it up and going along with it, no matter how brainless the edicts are. Play it safe, keep your job, don't make waves.
The good news is, if you are willing to pitch this battle, if you are willing to work hard, putting together the necessary information and documentation in such a way to actually demonstrate to the powers-that-be that there is a Better Way, possibly even volunteering to take on a huge chunk of the work yourself, and do your damned best to ensure that your bosses look really good in the process, that you can not only get what you want, but you can look really good in a highly visible way in the process. That's how to get promoted into places where you're not just fighting these battles, but actually making the decisions.
Or you may get fired because someone can't handle you disagreeing with them, no matter how stupid they're being. That's the gamble, the risk versus reward. I can't tell you which path to take, because I don't know all of the politics of your particular situation, but I hope it all turns out well, no matter which road you go down.
Champion Team vs Team of Champions (Score:5, Insightful)
Savings only in the long run (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes it would cost less in the long run, but in the short to medium term they'll be running around like headless chickens outside their comfort zone (sorry for the mixed metaphors).
For right now: If these guys are 'strategically' a Microsoft shop, then there's little you can do at your pay grade. Suck it up or leave.
And as much as I hate being tied to IE, I (putting my IT manager hat on) can see why I wouldn't want an unsupported browser on my network. And Mozilla doesn't make it easy to deploy Firefox across an enterprise (no group policy, no MSI -- I know about 3rd party tools but those don't really count)
And who knows, maybe your bosses are the nasty types who see the fact that IE performs poorly on modern websites as a 'feature'.
Efficiency ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Your management (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course, they have a deal with the vendor of the crap standard, so there you have it.
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, it would be the first time. Microsoft doesn't offer any kind of licensing that requires an organization to use their software exclusively. If they did they would open themselves up to a whole new round of anti-trust litigation.
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, but they can *wink*wink* *nudge*nudge* take an executive on a nice golf vacation if the organization does not use anything else.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Our University uses the Microsoft Consolidated Campus Agreement. We pay around $2 per client for a Windows upgrade OS and Office. It doesn't have to be total buy-in throughout the university either...departments can sign up or not. Apple has something similar, but at this point your whole university has to sign up or you don't get the deal. This is a nod to the size of Apple vs Microsoft I think.
As far as a hospital standardizing on a single OS and software infrastructure, people often forget that there's a benefit to standardization. Even if you can save money by using open source this or that, you're essentially throwing a wrench in the works if you don't do it in the right place. IE, Windows -- all centrally updateable and manageable with MS tools. Firefox has an msi made by a third party to play nice with AD group policy software distribution, but as far as I know, centrally managing it (specifying options, bookmarks, etc) isn't possible (please correct me if I'm wrong).
You can be a Microsoft desktop shop, but have your application and database servers run UNIX or Linux and you probably won't have too many interoperability issues. We're one of the universities that is trying out the Google Apps system for students, faculty, and staff, even though we have a growing population of centralized Exchange users (email, calendaring, IM, VOIP, etc). We're working on interoperability now, but it would likely be easier if we went one way or the other.
Re:Your management (Score:1, Insightful)
The correct answer would be to make the usage of IE verboten to mitigate the risk of running afoul of HIPAA regulations due to vulnerabilities in IE (especially if the supported computer environment is significantly aged, as publicly funded entities tend to deal with, and still running Windows 2000 which supports no later than IE6.)
Re:Guess what (Score:5, Insightful)
And hacking into the registry isn't complicated? Trying to sort through the bizarre and dizzying array of options, often thrown in the most obtuse places, in the Exchange System Manager isn't?
Computers are complex things. A good IT guy shouldn't have his ass chained to any one system. Only lazy or inept IT people get cold shivers at seeing a text login.
I'm not going to say anything in particular about this situation. Obviously management controls the show, and if they're pro-Microsoft, you've got two choices, do what you're told or get another job. But in general, anyone who thinks Microsoft's offerings are really that much easier than *nix must have horseshoes up his ass.
Re:Guess what (Score:2, Insightful)
I first dumped Microsoft's browser when other browsers better handled obnoxious and broken websites.
This choice was later validated when I noticed coworkers losing days of productivity to browse-by malware infestations from seemingly legitimate professional websites.
This isn't just about Linux, but everyone one of Microsoft's competitors in any area that Microsoft might choose to throw their weight around in.
Attempting to turn this into a "Linux is hard whine" is a highly dishonest attempt at distraction.
Re:MS Wromtongues Infecting Your Corporate Overlor (Score:2, Insightful)
There is nothing "experimental" about open source in hospitals. There are several HIS and hospital management open source solutions that are quite good, throw in some open office in the mix and you have a very cheaply run hospital.
Do Your Job (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't a war worth waging. You have to ask yourself if this is something worth losing your job over because that is what is possible if you stir things up. Sure, they may not fire you for "recommending non-Microsoft software" but, if you piss off and annoy enough people (or just the wrong person), they'll find a reason to let you go ("not being a team player", for example).
There are things worth stirring the pot over but this just isn't one of them. I agree with your general stance - government agencies being locked into Microsoft strikes me as a very bad idea - but it's not worth the fight. Just do your job and do it well, get promoted into a position of influence, and try to change policy when you're in a position to do so. Until then, pick your battles.
And, if you knew me, you'd find it hysterical that _I_ am suggesting not starting a fight over something...
Take it one step at a time (Score:5, Insightful)
If you go to your CIO saying "if we took less than half the money we spend on licensing Microsoft's software alone and invested that in training users for an open source system, we would be far better off in the long run" you will be ignored. Rip and replace never goes as smoothly as the pamphlets promise. Fine one application with measurable improvements over your existing system and make an ROI case for that one small change. Earn the credibility by being sympathetic to your CIO or IT Director's objectives.
Re:Take it to the board (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Think strategically for a moment - PLEASE. (Score:1, Insightful)
Without question, a *current* version of IE which is *properly patched* is superior (security-wise) to a 6 month old, unpatched version of Firefox. /quote?
Sorry, gonna have to call BS on that one. A cursory visit through Secunia advisories will make it painfully obvious that your current, properly patched IE is roughly equivalent to the alternative you propose. that is to say, not especially secure. Also, standardization and centralization of group policy doesn't need to be sacrificed by a few scripts (or systems management software) to keep non-MS applications up to date.
Re:Your management (Score:1, Insightful)
Choosing a piece of software based on the idea that "it's not ALL that bad" is asinine... almost like marrying a woman/man because "they aren't THAT bad".
Chrome's a trial beta basically, so it's not even in the picture.
Re:Take it to the board (Score:5, Insightful)
If the hospital is tax payer funded, then you have every right as a taxpayer to take this memo to the board.
I would suggest that you gather a number of like minded taxpayers (and voters) and make a visit to the board to explain your stance.
You might want to do some research and find that your IT director got a free beer (golf trip) out of this. Fodder for the meeting.
You might have the right to do this; but consider the consequences; i.e. is it worth potentially losing your job or getting shunted aside? Poking a dog in the eye gets its attention but also may provoke a response that harms you. Accusing someone of malfeasance really puts you in a good position.
Generally, when forced to publicly defend their position, leadership tends to strengthen their support of their position and finds ways to discredit the opposition. At any rate; that doesn't get them to consider open source but just makes it more of an enemy.
A far better way, IMHO, is first to define how OSS can do the job better - not just cheaper, but really better. Change is hard; and changing just to save money, especially when it involves systems that currently are viewed as working, is ngh on impossible. So, if you are serious about this:
1. Determine the requirements of current systems and how well the current solutions meet those requirements; a cost benefit analysis will also show if ot is truly worth switching.
2. Identify an area where OSS software can do that better without impacting any other areas; implicit in this is who will provide support or add needed features? "The community" is not the right answer.
3. Propose a small scale pilot to see if the solution will really work and be better.
4. If 3 is successful, then you can look at a doing cost /benefit analysis for a broader rollout; and then getting support for switching.
This type of approach builds support for your concept rather than creating an adversarial relationship from the start.
One of the issues facing OSS is the zealot's desire to have it be everywhere simply because *they* believe it is a better way. That's nice, but in the real world people need to be convinced and it needs to be better than what currently is in use. People simply want solutions that work.
Re:Ethics (Score:1, Insightful)
I'd mod you up if I could. I work at a big private medical center, and we have pretty strict policies too. We have to fill out conflict of interest disclosure forms as part of our university obligations, and provide this information any time we submit publications or give talks. I'm not sure the hospital requires these, but it should.
Anyone making involved in making a decision about a big software purchase should have to disclose any significant financial ties to or gifts from corporate entities. This should be a no-brainer in a public institution.
Policy isn't your job (Score:5, Insightful)
As a front-lines IT grunt, it's your job to implement policy. It isn't your job to mouth off about it throughout the company outside your management chain to try and get it changed. That would be insubordination.
Feel more than welcome to complain internally within your group. But when talking to customers (end customers, and the other, non-IT staff in the organization) it is reasonable to expect you, employee (in your capacity as such), not to publicly disparage the policies of your employer. It's not professional, and I'm pretty sure it's sufficient grounds to fire you unless you are protected from such by some other arrangement (civil service laws, union, etc.)
You can talk to whatever legislative body pays the bills and ask them to encourage open source, you can talk to the media as a private citizen, you can do a lot of things. But you can't necessarily do those things at work, and you can't do them in your capacity as an employee. This goes for any employer.
SirWired
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Guess what (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting comparison you make:
>> The command line is a fine interface, and if you're not a jackass, it's much quicker than hunting through any set of menus.
However, you're comparing someone that has memorized all the command line commands, syntaxes, and switches to someone that has no idea where in the menus each option is. "hunting" through the menus isn't necessary if you have even a basic understanding of their layout. However, without a thorough understanding of the command line, there's no hope in hell of being able to use it at ALL.
Don't get me wrong - I love the command line... but your statement is not even close to being realistic.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with the sentiment that MS may not be the best choice, I can sympathize with the goal. Also, if members of the IT staff are criticizing or trashing technology decisions, that will only make life harder (and sometimes unnecessarily so) for management. Users bitch about IT anyway, so I can see wanting to get ahead of that.
Finally, I know a few folks who worked in IT at hospitals, their budgets were nil. There may not be $$$ available to support different OSs for various functions. Just another perspective. I don't think such a draconian approach is a good one, I can understand the sentiment.
Hypocrisy Disclaimer: My current employer is Windows-ONLY on their network, but I have my Mac working just fine, so I'm glad they've looked the other way - thus far... [shrug] I suppose it's easier to "see their perspective" if I don't have to live with it.
One word: Compliance (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Guess what (Score:3, Insightful)
You know, I'm a long time Linux SysAdmin. I like to have both a Windows and Linux machine around. Each has it's purposes. On Linux I can do real work. On Windows, I can play video games. ;)
I ended up getting a nasty virus on WinXP a few months ago. I continued using Linux.
I got a copy of Win7, and was entertained by it. I actually kinda liked the pretty of it. ooohhh.. aaaahhhh. Glad it wasn't me spending the money. I ran into hardware compatibility issues. The video drive that worked for two months suddenly caused blue screens after about 5 minutes. Something else fatal happened, where it just blue screens during bootup. The only solutions I've found where to reinstall. But, I have games on there, that I don't want to reinstall. Oh well. Now it blue screens during the install. The only references to this one I found were that the install media has a fault. {sigh} I guess I have to go to the store and buy a new copy if I want it to work.
I threw another drive in there, and am running under Linux very happily. It installed quickly (like, way faster than XP, Vista, or Win7 do). All my devices worked right out of the box. The only real configuration I had to do was to set up Xorg (xorgsetup [enter][enter][enter]).
The people who whine about how bad Linux is, or how hard it is to work, are the folks who have never just sat down and tried it.
I've had a few people come by. They want to use my computer for something. I point at the Firefox link at the bottom and tell them to have at it.
Under Linux, I'll have Firefox or Chromium (or both) up, and several xterms.
Under Windows, I'll have Firefox or Chrome (or both) up, and several putty windows.
For average Joe User, there's no big difference between the two, except you can't play your video games. I know, some work under Wine, but for me I still consider that the only drawback. Since I spend about 3 hours a year playing video games, I can find that outlet elsewhere.
Now, for the topic at hand ... who cares. So the guy in charge wants his shop MS. That's his problem. Maybe he likes his Windows. Maybe he's just annoyed because there's some subversive zealot changing the way his shop works. If he's in charge, those decisions are his to make. There may be good reasons those decisions were made. Maybe he uses AD to manage all his machines, and it automatically updates and continues to make sure things work right. Hey, sometimes that works. For some reason, he gets paid the big bucks there, so he can make the calls. If he wanted an all OpenBSD shop, with Links as the only browser, and Pine as the only mail client, so be it.
Re:Think strategically for a moment - PLEASE. (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait... so you're supposed to use a FireFox fork? Is there any guarantee that they will stay in sync with the main branch? How quickly will they apply security patches when they are issued?
Re:Name them (Score:5, Insightful)
I should have been a little more even-handed with my reply - no doubt.
But the point being that I have spoken to IT directors and we discuss "open-source" options etc and the first thing I hear from them is "our budget was just locked down, we have NO MONEY... " And then they write a big check to Microsoft for their CALS and server licenses, never thinking that they actually CAN save $ in a lot of areas if they would give up their blind allegiance to Microsoft.
It gets old ofter a while. That's all. Especially since there are options.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
From my experience these types of managers are often also technically clueless; by aligning with MS and allowing MS to 'guide' them, they have a solution that 'even they' can get implemented and thus they can retain their management position and prevent their incompetency from being exposed. The "strategy" they are referring to is the "strategy" of keeping their own jobs. If they had to implement something that might perhaps be more cost-efficient e.g. open source, it would require more knowledge than they have and they'd simply be lost.
Re:Your management (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not foolish enough to say all our problems would be solved overnight by changing away from Microsoft's infrastructure, but I am convinced that if we took less than half the money we spend on licensing Microsoft's software alone and invested that in training users for an open source system, we would be far better off in the long run.
Open source? Invested in training? I probably have some news for you...when dealing with healthcare, nothing is free, especially the software. The reason why many hospitals run Windows XP and use Exchange, MS SQL, etc, is because it interfaces with the large customer/patient databases and X-Ray machines.
A bottom of the line digital X-Ray machine for a Vet Clinic (I'm using this as an example, because I have experience with it) is $200, 000. Software costs $50, 000 and runs only on Windows. Now, say we were to go with an "open source" OS, like Ubuntu. Sure, it's free (we save $150!!), but now who is going to program this amazing "open source" X-Ray program to interface with the X-Ray machine? Oh, wait, you mean you can't? Of course not, because the X-Ray manufacturer isn't about to get locked out of $50, 000 profit...but don't worry, they WILL custom program an "open source" solution for you, for another $400, 000...
What about that patient database and front-end? What? It only works on Windows? Why? Because programming one for Windows and Linux, when Linux has 1% market share, or 5% or 10% isn't worth the development costs - there is no return on investment. One major player has to take a chance and do it - they will likely lose money for the first few years, until enough hospitals/clinics, switch over. The problem with switching to an open source OS, is that ALL of their programs have to work on it. No IT body is going to jury-rig a solution where they use Ubuntu for program X, and then throw VMware or VirtualBox on it to have Windows XP to use program Y. It's a support nightmare, and very difficult to sell to upper-management. Custom software is a bitch, and no one will do it for free. Do you know why companies still pay millions of dollars per year to MS and Oracle for their databases? Because Postgres and MySQL, even though they are free and open source, just cannot compete in certain situations. Healthcare is a big industry, and it represents the equivalent of a Berlin Wall of technology. Nothing gets in unless it is thoroughly vetted and tested. It's not that they believe Windows XP is the best OS to run their X-Ray machine, it's that they know 100% what to expect, they have used it for years, they have policies regarding its use, they have it locked down. Changing it brings a whole lot of uncertainty and cost...and like I said before, until a huge player tries something different, nothing will change...and no player that big is going to make shit for free.
The MS Exchange, SQL, Windows licences are a tiny, miniscule amount of the software costs compared to the custom software hospitals use. It's all made for Windows (well, a lot of it).
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
To not even let them talk about it smacks of bribery. Exclusively using their products is dishonest enough as it is.
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Some one has to maintain every piece of software - and train people on each piece of software. This is not your developer shop - this is a public hospital with a lot of people who are not very computer savvy. Every piece of software adds to the complexity of the system.
By the way - stop saying 'my tax dollars' - you are paying your share to administrators who decide how to do something. Just cos you paid $10K of a $1Billion budget doesnt mean you get to say how every penny should be used.
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I am a big Firefox fan I will say that you will save zero using Firefox over say IE8.
If you have properly configured workstations and a good firewall and keep updated Windows 7, Vista, and even XP are not nightmares to keep working.
I doubt that you could move everybody to Linux because of software requirements and they are probably tired of having to defend using Windows.
As much as I am Linux user and fan for this place it may be a good workable solution. They know how to manage Windows and don't want to learn how to deal with Linux or Unix.
Being tied completely to a single vendor isn't the ideal solution but it is not unusual or without some benefits.
I would LOVE to be a fly on the wall for that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure. Take your decision right to your boss, just like that. And he'll say, "Exactly how did you arrive at your estimate of 'less than half', what's your measuring criteria for 'far better off', how long is 'the long run', and what training makes this magically appear?"
At that point you'll probably stammer something like, "Open source good - Microsoft bad! Nerd SMASH!" and then your boss gets to push the button that opens the trap door beneath you.
Re:Guess what (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF are you talking about? Even some Microsoft KB articles tell you to enter the registry.
Picking the wrong fight (Score:1, Insightful)
The majority of comments I see here seem to be focusing on entirely the wrong thing. The 'outrageous' part of this situation has nothing to do with them being a Microsoft shop and using Microsoft-only software. Any given organization has to put in place policies that they see as being beneficial to smooth and practical operations. People can disagree that going Microsoft-only is a good solution, but if the policy gets the job done and makes the organizations infrastructure cost-effective and manageable, then this hospital is entirely within its rights to implement this policy. Removing Firefox is perfectly acceptable if their policy deems this application to be problematic for whatever reason.
Everybody is up in arms about how to get Open Source into this organization and how to make them see the benefits of OSS, as if the lack of OSS was the real problem here. It isn't. The problem is censorship.
'(XXXX) District Health Board — Information Services is strategically a Microsoft shop and when talking to staff / customers we are to support this strategy. I no longer want to see comments promoting other Operating Systems.'
There's a fairly thick line there between, "we don't use Linux because our homogeneous infrastructure is easier for us to maintain", versus, "as a publicly funded institution in a sector that has nothing to do with selling software, we believe it's acceptable to act as an advocate for one of our vendors, and we intend to squelch discussion about competing products". Whomever sent this email intends to muzzle anyone making comments that don't promote Windows. This is a problem. Information Services isn't looking out for the hospital here, they're looking out for Microsoft. They're acting as a corporate shill using taxpayer funds.
I'd be pissed too. I have no problem with them choosing to use Windows. I have a problem with some asshole telling me I need to act as a Windows sales rep. And I have have a REAL problem with this sort of behavior being funded by tax dollars.
Re:Take it to the board (Score:3, Insightful)
You might have the right to do this; but consider the consequences; i.e. is it worth potentially losing your job or getting shunted aside?
Depends how good you think you are. If you're any good, you'll find another job, possibly one where you have a voice. If you're just average, and you think it will be hard to find another job, then toe the line.
I would silence my own purely technical opinion. If management disagrees, that's their prerogative, but it's also your prerogative to give impartial technical opinions. If I was the submitter, I would write up a report detailing his "recommendations", outlining why he thinks they would save money, and include a plan for implementation so that it all sounds workable. Submit the report to management and/or the board as e.g. "technical opinion and recommendation on IT solutions for the organisation" or whatever.
It's always better to get your case/viewpoint in writing, even if it goes nowhere. That way, if crap hits the fan (e.g. say it turns out some corruption was involved, for example) it will be clear you were never part of it.
If you are a 'true' technical person, you will always stand by your technical *opinions*. Now *actions* are another thing; as an employee on someone's payroll, you have to follow their orders, end of story, even if you disagree with them. But you don't have to do it quietly. Nor do you have to be happy with it; ultimately, if you think your management are fools, you are better off dusting off your resume and starting to look around for an employer that fits your own views better.
The alternative, if you're so inclined, is to learn to play the political game, climb the ladder, and once you're at the top, change the "strategy". Not for me thanks. Or what I ultimately did, start my own business.
Re:MS Wromtongues Infecting Your Corporate Overlor (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you hate MS (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Management often don't have the luxury of being idealists, because they're the one's who are accountable for your paycheck.
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Another problem with Microsoft is that they are closed source, which makes it harder for the white hats to identify security flaws and for others to help Microsoft fix security problems.
Finally, the fact that Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. This is bad because it means that their software is by far the market leader, and therefore will be the target of more attacks. Also, traditionally Microsoft has also used its monopoly to subvert open protocols so they can only be implemented by Microsoft products. This hurts security, because there will be naturally less competition in this marketplace, so people can't purchase more secure software because it simply isn't available.
Re:Guess what (Score:4, Insightful)
The command line is a fine interface. Graphical interfaces are fine too. Haven't we all learned by now that there isn't one UI that is absolutely superior to all others, but rather it depends on the user, what the user is trying to accomplish, and the context?
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Guess what (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a considerable difference between fucking around on a home installation and actually making production servers. I mean, at home, I'll happily try things in both in any OS install that I wouldn't even dream of doing on a production server.
Put it this way. I've been running a Debian webserver and Debian STMP proxy/gateway server on the same install for the better part of two years. They started out as standalone servers, and I transferred them over to KVM guests under an Ubuntu server (which itself has been up for about eleven months now). These servers are treated like any production server should be, conservatively. I don't just run around installing any old damned package, mucking around with custom-compiled modules or any of that. That's what test servers are for (and also what makes virtualization so great, I can create an image, screw it up to my hearts content, and then restore the backup). And Windows certainly is no proof against FUBARs. I've seen Windows machines, even servers, that were just gawdawful frightening disaster areas, to the point where I recommended reinstallation rather than trying to clean up what had been done to them.
There is a considerable difference between "Linux on the desktop" and "Linux in the server room". Linux on the desktop can be a pain (though so can Windows, I know, I administrate dozens of the things), but in the server room, it has a healthy heritage of nearly forty years. Server software like Samba and Apache have most certainly stood the test of time and use. But production servers require patience and most importantly discipline. I've seen too many "tech savvy" guys fuck things up horribly because the one thing they don't have is the cautious mindset. They treat production equipment like their home computer.
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's true, but procurement laws often DO describe what steps an organization must follow when choosing software vendors. This could be as simple as a formal review of software requirements with specific criteria and how a decision was reached, written on paper.
Laws vary a lot by state, but slashdot is very US-centric and I have to assume that the submitter is in the US. Even if I knew where s/he was from, I wouldn't do them a favor and look up the laws myself. Contacting the AG is a sensible step in every state if you believe a publicly funded organization is breaking the law.
There is no guarantee of a positive outcome and from my experience, attorneys general offices are very slow to respond.
Re:hmm... (Score:4, Insightful)
What annoys me is that Microsoft only has two modes -
Secure - and utterly unusable for anything except for people that think inside the exact box you have designed it for, or
Usable for someone that has some problem solving ability, and entirely insecure, because if you can do anything outside your precisely designed box you can access a pwned website that has a file that can leverage your access into complete control of your computer.
I've watched dozens of companies, with smart admins, and no one has any way to both give their people both some room to do actual problem solving *and* stay secure.
All of which is trivially easy in every version of Linux I've seen. Since you can feasibly lock someone down from admin rights without making the system unusable, people can do whatever they need to do, without putting your entire pc and network at risk.
That being the case - why anyone uses windows in a business environment is just beyond me.
Pug
So what flavor is it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows NT/2K/XP/Vista/7?
Com/ActiveX/.net
Need I go on?
Re:Policy isn't your job (Score:1, Insightful)
As a front-lines IT grunt, it's your job to implement policy. It isn't your job to mouth off about it throughout the company outside your management chain to try and get it changed. That would be insubordination.
So, sit-down, shut-up and be a cog in the machine? Guess it scores well on ./
Re:Have you asked why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed. If I were running IT at a hospital -- or any other facility with medical records subject to the HIPAA security rules -- I would be annoyingly paranoid about standardized desktop platforms and application software. I'd also be looking for software vendors who had staff that understood HIPAA. Almost certainly true that MS has such staff, not nearly so clear about OSS.
OTOH, if I were sending out e-mail like that in the original post, and HIPAA was the root cause for the restrictions, it would clearly state that such uniformity had been deemed necessary to comply with the HIPAA rules within the available IT resources. I have always found that people react better if you give them a reason related to the business for what appear to be draconian restrictions.
This web thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Browser add-ons routinely break
You need browser add-ons to correctly run your "critical" applications? You need different applications. One of the largest points of moving business applications to web interfaces is that the interface is standardized. That is, your web apps should run in IE, Firefox, Opera, etc. etc., because all these apps follow the same published standards. (BTW "Microsoft" is not a standard.) If an app does not follow these standards, you don't buy it, and that is what saves you headache down the road.
Re:hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's entirely possible that your hospital signed a deal with Microsoft...by exclusively using their products, they would get a discount.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time...
Which for a hospital often can directly impact health care. I see this all the time working for a hospital. The IT department doesn't know anything but Windows, doesn't want to support anything but Windows, and summarily declares anything but Windows 'not their problem'. The trouble is that patient care is often determined by the tools that do the job. We'll use Radiology as an example as they have been computerized due to the nature of their work for longer than most other departments in the hospital. Back in the day (10 years ago or more), most radiology was all Macintosh. Macs were built to do graphics and had networking abilities built in. It made sense that they would be used by many companies doing radiology apps and devices for use in hospitals. However, the hospital I worked at IT's department doesn't do Mac. Therefore, Radiology got no IT support. At that time, about 25% of the departments and clinics at the hospital were Macintosh. They all got no IT support simply because the people the IT department decided they'd rather support what they knew rather than what was required for their job. From talking to the networking guys, the situation was the same a few years earlier when the hospital was 50% Mac. Unfortunately, nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft. Today, there are many Radiology apps are on either linux or the Mac. IT still ignores that they exist or that patient care depends on those apps running and often talking to the rest of the hospital.
Of course, what this means is that the Radiology department just had to go and hire their own IT department. The hospital IT department keeps trying to take over but is never willing to actually do the work that is needed to run things.
Sounds like they just need to fire the Director of IT, or whoever is in charge, with prejudice, then hire one who is willing to employ people who know more than Windows.
Its very easy, all somebody with clout has to tell him him, "Your will support Linux and Mac for the Radiology Department, if you do not have the resources, you will hire them.". Then start documenting the process. When he whines about them not being certified or whatever, the bozo gets his policy changed, immediately.
Re:hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)
You really aren't that knowledgeable, newb. (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of purchasing MS software is trivial in your budget I assure you. It may seem like a lot of money, but the salaries of the people using the MS software probably eclipse your entire software budget in less than 2 weeks. The cost is nothing.
Training is not just a financial cost, this is a ignorant view point and shows very little connection with the reality that is the job of those people you support.
Open source will likely cost more overall. You'll have more difficulty integrating with proprietary systems in use, because those private systems have no urge to deal with Linux, its not worth their effort to hit a target that moves daily. Then you have to deal with all the incompatibilities of whatever other OSS supporting software you add in, like OO.org and how those documents deal with other organizations the hospital has to deal with. You'll lose more the first year in time because of people sending documents in the wrong document format (OO native instead of MS compatible) than you'll save on the price of Office.
The problem with your post is typical with the FLOSS community. The problem is the misconception that the cost of purchasing software is the expensive part. You couldnt' be more wrong. Software cost is in day to day operations and maintenance, which FLOSS offers no advantages to and several disadvantages. You can argue that 'fast patching' is an advantage, but to most IT departments its not. Its FAR more difficult to deal with breakage from randomly updated packages for your distro than once a month patch tuesdays. Any sane IT department isn't tracking patches as they come out anyway, they're going to QA them in their environment first, so they are going to establish some sort of schedule for this sort of thing thats effectively going to put them on a once a month or less often cycle anyway. FLOSS offers the promise of open access to your data, but no one cares how open it is from a technical point of view if every time they send it to someone else, the other people can't view it. It is in fact for all intents and purposes less open with OO.org in native format than DOCX as far as the normal user is concerned.
Training people to switch from Windows to Linux is not as cheap as you think, you can't just send them to a couple classes and everything will be dandy and they'll be just as productive as they always were. They won't, it will take years for them to return to that level of productivity ... because ... they've been using the system they already use for years. You can't replace it and expect to return to the same level of productivity any time soon. And regardless of how much you think each version of windows or office is different than the past versions, the switch to something like Linux/KDE or Gnome and OO.org are FAR FAR greater transitions than going from Office 95 to 2007, you just don't realize it because you're constantly dealing with software that is unlike the rest of the software on the system ... Linux users are used to no consistency. These users work with Windows and Office everyday on their own, at home. They know how Windows works for them and the subtle differences are the ones that waste most of the time. The obvious difference people get used to quickly, the little quirks that you respond to subconsciously take YEARS to retrain yourself for.
The cost for YOU to switch to Linux from MS software may be less since you already use both. The cost for your desk workers who do not work on computers as their primary job function on the other hand is much much higher and you're ignoring it completely.
You might want to consider that those people making the choices above you might ... maybe ... have just a little more experience managing than you do. I realize this is hard to see from your perspective and you may think they are morons but they have a different view of the organization than you do and are privy to a lot of information to whi
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)