A Liberal Democrat MP has launched a stinging attack on the government's IT strategy, saying that it has given Microsoft too much control.
John Pugh, who is MP for Southport and a member of the Public Accounts Committee, was speaking in an adjournment debate on Tuesday that he had called. The aim of the debate, he said, was to explore the alternatives to using Microsoft software, including open source.
The current government strategy left too much in the hands of Microsoft, Pugh argued, and he accused the company of "predatory pricing and stultifying competition".
Pugh said of the Government Gateway: "Technically, the Government Gateway is owned by Microsoft." He also said the government's policy "is, in part, in breach of European Union regulations" on competition.
The government's strategy hits the poorest hardest, Pugh said. "Why should people on benefits have to use Vista when it costs hundreds of pounds and there are cheaper open-source solutions available?" the MP asked. "Why should people have to use Vista rather than Apple, for that matter?"
The government had ceded control to Microsoft, the MP said, pointing to Connecting for Health, the NHS's multi-billion pound IT programme as an example. "I am happy for Connecting for Health to go to a company like Microsoft," he said. "I am less happy when the details are subject to a confidentiality agreement."
Speaking for the government, Angela Eagle, MP for Wallasey, said that the government's strategy on IT was not governed by a desire to choose any particular vendor, but by the "need to get value and the best possible deal".
Eagle said that there were many benefits of open-source software but, in the end, it was the price to the taxpayer that mattered. "I agree that open-source platforms can help open competition and that we want a free marketplace," she said. "We are using open source in many areas and we do realise there are benefits."
But while open source could appear cheap, there were extra costs in training and support that meant it may not always be the cheapest solution, Eagle said.
Pugh is a frequent critic of the government's IT strategy. In November 2006, Pugh called for a "level playing-field in software", arguing that the government was favouring Microsoft above other companies.
Talkback
"But while open source could appear cheap, there were extra costs in training and support that meant it may not always be the cheapest solution"
I sense something. A presence I've not felt since... Newham.
Nice Star Wars/Newham reference. For those who don't know Newham council was the UK local authority that famously flirted with open source but then became big supporters of Microsoft.
UK councils dump Windows for Linux
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/itmanagement/0,1000000308,2135726,00.htm
Interestingly - Computer Weekly dug-up a story that Newham have had to delay their Vista upgrade because of a lack of enterprise ready apps - that'll learn 'em.
Lack of third-party apps delays Newham's Vista roll-out
http://www.computerweekly.com/Articles/2007/09/25/226960/lack-of-third-party-apps-delays-newhams-vista-roll-out.htm
Here is the spin the Open Schools Alliance put on yesterday's debate. I think it would be fair to say that there version is lightly different.
"In the debate John said: "The Driving Standards Agency driving theory CD-ROM can be used only on Windows computers. The Revenue website has limited functionality for the Firefox web browser...The Department for Work and Pensions online benefits system can be accessed only by those who have a Windows computer. Those who have Unix or Linux computers or who use Mac computers should simply not bother...the Government's chosen solutions .. are close to being product placement."
John further highlighted the controversial BECTA (British Educational Communications and Technology Agency) procurement frameworks as well as the BBC iPlayer which have been subject to fierce criticisan EU complaint over interoperability and a referral to the Office of Fair Trading.
He added "I am obliged by the Government...to use a Windows computer if I want to apply online for benefits. If the problem did not concern software and I was forced to buy a Vauxhall car to use the roads, it would be a simply intolerable situation. The fact that this issue concerns a new industry makes the point less obvious, but none the less equally damning."
"Fundamentally this debate is about neither Microsoft nor open source; it is about eradicating the suspicion and certainly the prospect—indeed, I believe it is the reality—of illegal state aid being given to any software enterprise through the use of public resources."
Ms. Eagle, who was repeatedly asked by John Pugh MP to refute the claim that the government was giving state aid by preferencing one operating system in its provision of web and software services continued to read from a prepared statement on open source, appearing to ignore the question before her.
Clearly wrong-footed in the debate Ms. Eagle, who seemed totally out of her depth on issues of anti-trust and competition, did not even appear to be aware that Microsoft had been fined over 600m euros for anti-trust violations by the EU last month."
Good points perhaps but a little unfair maybe. I thought that Eagle put up a better fist of it than that. Although it can also be said that judging by the handful who attended the debate, interest in this question may still seem largely academic to many.
This is about illegal state aid where government preferences a platform that people /must/ use (and it does it repeatedly and systematically maybe even without realising it) they are distorting the market and /not in a little way/, look at the consequences of doing that in the case of EU vs MS (interoperability and preferencing platforms by bundling media players)
One would assume the taxpayer would have a say in how their money is used, unless Redmond is slipping a few bucks to the powers that be.
Pugh says why should people have to pay for vista instead opting to use Mac, If he had of said Linux i would agree but i think he should have gone to PCworld to see how much things cost.
I agree on the basis people are not given enough choice for OS somewhere like Pc world does not give the option for a Linux OS such as Ubuntu.However Microsoft is what people are trained on in education and 9 times out of ten the product that will be used in the workplace so for the forseeable future trends for OS usage are unlikely to change.
Macs are lovely machines with a solid OS but you pay for the quality of the components used, they are subjected to minimal amount of viruses and spyware, but would this be the case if used on a larger scale. In terms of the Government im sure Macs are used where needed and i doubt that they have made any proactive effort to dissadvantage apple in any way.
As for linux and open source you are effictively getting an unfinished product for you to tune up. For people in our positions this is ok and i myself can switch between OS's with no problem at all (maybe some lol) but i am certain this is not the case for the majority of the public.
Microsoft OS and Applications far outweigh what you can do with opensource software such as open office for education and the bussiness world and the old saying it takes money to make money comes to my mind.
If Mr Pugh had asked a handfull of fairly large companies he would of found that many company's will use Linux servers for data storage or to run intranets and so on.
As a result i think we have healthy competition in this sector Microsoft are the giants in the industry but it seems to work ok.
The guy was asking why he should have to pay to purchase Vista when he has a perfectly working Mac... Just doesn't fit with the solution provided.
I think your find in the article provided this is what was said. Unless there is another article i am not aware of which has the full story. Had you read my whole coment you would have realised my title was merely no more than a title. Unless you can produce an article for me to read which backs up your claim i would conclude that i am infact not wrong. I would appreciate it if you would not make public statements to that effect.
John on reviewing your discussions it seems that you are pro Apple and anti Microsoft. Which makes me believe even more you just read my title. You defended the I-Phone from green Peace just yesterday aswell.
If you manage to read this far into my post i'll just let you know i am actually a Mac user and i think Macs are great but unlike yourself as it appears from your discussions i am abble to look at the whole picture and see how things work in a bigger scale.
Its quite a sorry state that your unable to do this and attack me for a tittle which is correct Macs are more expensive to buy. If you had carried on reading i said Both Mac and Linux have their place in industry.
Quite frankly i and i hope other users of zdnet will disregard what u have said on this issue.
There is no point complaining just because other people disagree with you. Personally, I find myself "shocked" by this statement of *yours*:
"As for linux and open source you are effictively[sic] getting an unfinished product for you to tune up. "
In contrast, perhaps you would care to suggest when (say) Windows XP became a finished product? Was it with SP2, or maybe when SP3 is finally released? (Note that I am meaning "finished" as in "complete", rather than "end of life".)
The argument i was making was not against any ones opinions. John made a coment based on the title of my discusion. My opinion is i like all three platforms but recognise how on a client level at least microsoft products will be used. If i were to opt to change one of the offices in my company to say Linux SUSE it would have to be tweaked to meet my requirements (this is what i mean by unfinished), where as with microsoft service packs have bought added security and functionality when needed. Not to mention additional training that would be need. And i can think of at least to software packages specific to my companies industry that only work on windows.
And please note i only atacked what John had said after he had done it to me. I joined this site with no intention of confrontation with other site Members. Only to perhaps impart some of my knowlege that could be usefull to others. All i was really doing was outline what is common practice in this industry. I use all three platforms but i can fully understand why companies everywhere opt for Microsoft. I thought joining ZD Net would give me the chance to converse with intelectual peers but from what im seeing here sadly it does not look like the case because its now two people who have failed to pickup on my underlying message. Its a real shame
Brevity. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/brevity)
Humility. (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/humility)
To be honest humility i would view as a trait although you try to make it negative in someway, maybe your not a bigshot but you like to think you are. On this note i am going to say although i had thought i had found something good here i have come across two users who are clearly arrogant and have what appears to be very little knowlege of this industry in this country. Brevity One will struggle to acheive this when talking about a subject that requires explanation.