Quoting Enda (enda at unison.ie):
> Propose linux, and the "lack of warranties" associated with it, and they
> have to analyse the risk and conclude that should it fail, we dump it, and
> implement MS. Which in theory, has to be more expensive than running with an
> MS solution from day one, therefore MS offers better value for money,
> because the "don't work" scenario will be underwritted by MS.
One could point out that:
1. The "warranties" from Microsoft Corporation have been so limited in
scope and remedies as to be effectively useless, and...
2. Nothing in open-source licensing precludes purchasing warranty
coverage from any party willing to offer it. The phrase you want to use
is that open source makes such "a la carte" service possible, where they
typically are not an option with proprietary alternatives.
Very likely, the same firms from whom the government would purchase
technical support contracts would also be willing to offer "warranty"
coverage. (A rational consumer would, however, want to stop to consider
what warranty coverage they are actually _getting_ with other
alternatives, and what annual expense the benefits warrant. I suspect
that no such rational analysis has occurred in this case, but rather
"warranties" are being bandied about as a symbolic issue -- a "checklist"
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!