I haven't been following this thread too close, but have a few observations.

You state that the primary reason state and city government should 
switch is due to costs. However, you lack to provide evidence that 
switching to Linux is cost effective. I think your argument would be 
strengthened greatly if you could provide numbers to backup your claim. 
How much money is being spent? How much relative to their overall budget 
(is it a significant cost?)? Other governments that switched, how did 
this change their cost structure?

It seems that your proposed summary kills your argument -- if they are 
unable to completely function with OSS, then what is the solution? 
hybrid setup? dual desktops? Sounds like not only are the costs of 
migration high, but then cost of administration is higher due to having 
to maintain multiple operating systems, infrastructures, etc. I think 
when it is all said and done, the  initial cost of migration/rewriting 
software (core complex software at that) for a new platform would be 
more costly than sticking with the current platform, atleast for the 
short-term. If the government agencies are cash strapped, it looks like 
a poor use of short-term funds to take on such a massive transition.

I think you need to go above and beyond a simple cost argument. You need 
to show long-term benefit. Security? Freedoms? Open Standards? Lack of 
Vendor Lockin? Flexibility (LTSP)? Choice?   If you can insert quotes 
from the government agencies that use OSS, that will help strengthen 
your argument as well.

Joe


Michael Havens wrote:

>Please, I want to send this in as a compilation piece so please, tell me where 
>and how to improve it and EVERYONE tell me if you want to be included in the 
>sig.
>


---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss