Integration cited by Scottish cops for foiling open source

Integration cited by Scottish cops for foiling open source

Summary: By way of ZDNet reader Darren Clarke comes a pointer to a news report on British tech site ComputerWeekly.com that has the details on why, after having once forsaken proprietary software for open source, the Central Scotland Police have ditched Plan A for Plan B: Microsoft (some open source will be kept).

SHARE:
TOPICS: Open Source
4

By way of ZDNet reader Darren Clarke comes a pointer to a news report on British tech site ComputerWeekly.com that has the details on why, after having once forsaken proprietary software for open source, the Central Scotland Police have ditched Plan A for Plan B: Microsoft (some open source will be kept).  The report quotes CSP staffer David Stirling as saying:

Although an open-source solution met our needs in the past, it was becoming more difficult to maintain. As the need for increased integration and compatibility with other criminal justice agencies and community partners grows, the value of similar infrastructures becomes more important.

Among the applications that the CSP plans to roll out on the new infrastructure are a document management system that's expected to improve the agency's compliance with the local Freedom of Information Act  as well as document sharing amongst CSP staff.  The report also mentions a "hot desking" feature that sounds like it will allow staff to gain access to their "desktop" from any workstation -- the sort of desktop virtualization that Citrix is known for.

Topic: Open Source

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

4 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Other important facts...

    ... given at the end of the article:

    A survey by analyst group Gartner of delegates to its conferences in the US and
    Europe, found that just 1% of enterprise IT users run any Linux desktops.
    It also estimated that the proportion of enterprise users with some Linux
    desktops would increase to just 3.2% by 2008.

    That link is odd, by the way; produced some error messages I never saw before. Even one that said closing the page "might cause some problems." A very precise message.
    Anton Philidor
  • I see barrier to entry

    If you go it alone, you have to do everything by yourself. If you are unwilling to do so, then DON'T DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. It is obvious that "other" groups will be using M$ software and that integration issues WILL dominate. THEY will not change (for the same reasons), so you are swimming against the current if you think they will. This is what perpetuates the monopoly! If everything is proprietary, then integration is impossible, so in the end, you give up and go with the monopoly. "Better" plays no role in this scenario - if M$ software is worse or better it doesn't matter, you are FORCED to use it. Not only that, you are told by M$hills that it is BETTER software that people CHOOSE to use - that's why its number one.
    Roger Ramjet
    • Or you could call it the network effect.

      That's when people take advantage of a standard base to create products that would be very difficult to innovate otherwise. Encourages rapid growth.


      The less thoughful post would have been:

      Number One with a bullet.

      Number One! Number One!! Number One!!!

      But I decided people might use another meaning of "number one" to reduce the effectiveness of this cogent analysis. ;-)
      Anton Philidor
    • Missed the point

      I think the point is that people have been touting for a while now the desirability to move away from the Microsoft platform for two basic reasons - diversity, and because Microsoft is Evil. Now we don't need to go into the second because it's not relevant to this story (although the term "M$hills" attempts to introduce it). But as for the first issue, diversity, the claim has been that diverse is better than "monoculture". But to whom? Ideally, it may be true, but in the real world, people like to use what everyone else is using. And people like to get away with as little work as possible.

      It's all well and good for the techno-centric among us to decry the dominance of Microsoft in the industry and plead for more diversity. It sounds good in theory. But for the people out in the real world, diversity is less of an issue than we make it here. Just as the idea of WORA sounds good on paper but doesn't translate well into the real world (introducing yet another hot-button topic). In the real world, it's more important to "get along" with everyone else. As John Carroll is so fond of pointing out, people like to rally around a stamdard, and if there isn't one they will create one. Does that make it the fault of the one chosen to be the standard?

      Carl Rapson
      rapson