Re: [Fsfe-uk] QnetiQ study

[Tom Coady]

ian wrote:

> 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.

You mean we could get funding to teach FLOSS/LAMPON? I am all ears ;)

> 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.

I disagree slightly - virtually every time the government attempts to 
commission bespoke solutions it ends up spending over budget, behind 
time and becoming locked in to single vendors. Inland Revenue + EDS, TfL 
+ Crapita and that whole NATS thing come to mind as recent examples. 
Talk of interoperability seems to be coming from the EU rather than here.

> 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.

I agree with the need to think positive, but realistically it appears 
that big business who pay to be heard *do* exert disproportionate influence.

> 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.

Again I disagree slightly. When politicians have no clue and commission 
a study that becomes about the only basis for decision making and often 
does have an impact. I can only think of local examples at the moment, 
but I assume the same thing happens at central levels.