Your shout
- Posted:
- 15:39 07 Sep 2004
- Topics:
- Operating Systems
Have your say at computerweekly.com
On how compensation could have paid for the
IT
In response to the news that EDS will receive compensation
worth £9m following the cancellation of the NHS e-mail
contract (Computer Weekly, 17 August)
About two years ago I thought this e-mail application would be
another massive waste of money the NHS could ill afford.
Now, the sum of the compensation to EDS combined with the cost of
the renewal of contracts to the new provider and any other hidden
costs would probably purchase an off-the-shelf system (Oh, but I
forgotÉ it won't be gold-plated).
The take-up of this system was so poor (5% of proposed users) that
one must wonder at the level of consultation on the project.
Paul Berry
On public and private sector cover-ups
In response to Julia Isaak, who pointed out the difference in
profit motives between the public and private sectors (Letters, 17
August)
If Julia Isaak really thinks that private companies reward "those
who advance the interests of the public", she clearly hasn't been
paying much attention.
I have worked in public and private companies and the amount of
incompetence, politics and covering-up seems equal.
Andrew Ducker, Developer
On the true cost of pay-as-you-go broadband
In response to news about the first pay-as-you-go broadband
service available in the UK (Computer Weekly, 10 August)
It was no surprise to those of us who have long predicted that the
"all you can eat" broadband pricing model was unsustainable.
For too long, bandwidth-hogs have had a subsidised ride on the back
of the average subscriber who rely on their broadband connection to
browse the web or catch up on some e-mails. The popularity of P2P
download applications has forced ISPs to keep the price of
broadband artificially high and has been instrumental in curbing
the uptake of broadband.
But although the idea that subscribers pay for the bandwidth they
consume seems simple, per usage billing is dependant on another
crucial factor - security. The proliferation of malicious traffic
will undermine attempts by ISPs to move to this more lucrative
model.
When a MyDoom-like attack strikes, it dramatically increases
network traffic, potentially using up a subscriber's quota of
bandwidth before they have even switched on their computer. How
would an ISP reconcile this on a subscriber's bill?
Pay-as-you-go broadband has the potential to drive the uptake of
broadband services, but its success is dependent on an ISP's
ability to control security threats at the network level. As per
usage billing becomes the norm, ISPs would be wise to get their
house in order sooner rather than later.
Bryn Teasdale, director EMEA sales, P-Cube
On how SLAs depend on supplier relationships
In response to Matt Price, who said the problem with service
level agreements was deciding which party should take
responsibility (Computer Weekly, 31 August)
Matt Price's definition of the problem with SLAs is absolutely
right. It all revolves around who takes responsibility when a
disagreement arises.
Where he is wrong is about the solution. SLAs will never become the
bedrock of constructive supplier/customer relationships.
It is the other way round. If the relationship is right, founded on
trust and mutual benefit, that will form the bedrock of successful
SLAs. If the relationship is right, both/all parties will work to
resolve a problem to the benefit of the relationship.
The difficulty is that you can't document a relationship in advance
to ensure it is going to work. Relationships at all levels are
people-to-people things and we cannot hide behind the printed word
to make them work.
David Konopinski, business development manager, Interalia
Communications
Too many excuses for IT project failures
Confidentiality is only one of the excuses government departments
use to disguise misguided or failing IT projects (Computer Weekly,
27 July).
The procurement process is another, with individuals, teams and
departments able to hide incompetence behind the usually
over-complex process.
MPs are also correct to stress accountability. A multimillion-pound
investment in IT should have a named individual accountable for it,
rather than a committee or board that can diffuse and share blame
if things go wrong.
Lack of budget to attract correctly equipped and experienced people
is a poor excuse - without these individuals government IT projects
will continue to fail, taking millions of pounds of taxpayer's
money with them.
If the right people with the right skills are bought in at the
start of these projects, and if they are told they will be held
accountable, I am sure we would see a dramatic reduction in wasted
money on failed projects.
Janice Miller, chief executive, Partners for Change
Linux vs Windows on total cost of ownership
I would like to respond to the claim by Capgemini that Microsoft
was 68% cheaper than open source (Computer Weekly, 17 August). The
Newham trial was not representative because of the cost of using
Microsoft as a platform.
The applications involved in this trial, the networking environment
conditions and the cost of the hardware to run these systems must
also be included.
The licensing costs should be the standard price at which any
organisation can purchase the software. The rumoured special deals
help to lower the cost of Microsoft, making it a case study that is
good for advertising. Very few of their customers benefit from
these deals, which actually push people away from investigating
Linux.
Another issue is the cost of disruption. A virus or other malicious
code might wipe out a Microsoft network in minutes and servers are
just as vulnerable as desktops.
The launch of Longhorn will be an interesting time for Windows.
Microsoft has stated that backward compatibility between previous
Windows versions is not high on its priorities. The users Microsoft
will most easily persuade to upgrade are running Windows 95 and 98,
because support for these systems is to be suspended. This accounts
for an estimated 50% of all Windows desktops.
This is where open source has a chance. Linux on the desktop is a
viable replacement to many home users' Windows 95 and 98 desktops.
The minimum specification for Longhorn will make these computers
redundant, where Linux can offer a supported platform without the
resources-hungry Microsoft software.
A strong message to IT professionals investigating Linux is don't
believe all the advertising - there are a lot of worried companies
with large budgets wanting to hold their presence in the IT
markets.
Matthew Saunders, systems and infrastructure technical
support
Supplier mistakes are costing SMEs dearly
Your recent article (Computer Weekly, 3 August) showed that more
than 40% of executives from small and medium-sized businesses said
they have wasted money on IT; and 66% of those claimed this is as a
direct result of being sold the wrong product by a supplier. As an
experiment, we looked into some of the hundreds of "great offers"
put out by a leading PC manufacturer.
A recent promotion advertised a business-use PC with a flat panel
monitor for £399. But when we looked a bit closer we realised
it was not built to the same standards as business models and was
pre-loaded with Windows XP home edition. Great for home, but the
total cost of ownership for a business would have made the initial
low price irrelevant.
The same company was advertising servers at £349. But again,
scratch the surface and you find that the hard drive is IDE,
totally inappropriate for multi-user computers, and there was no
operating system on the server at all. When we specified the
correct installation for a five-user server with Microsoft Small
Business Server 2003, the price came to nearly £1,900 - more
than five times the amount advertised.
You might expect that these "great offers" came from a shoddy PC
reseller looking to shift some surplus stock. Unfortunately, for
the reputation of the IT industry, it was actually a direct sales
offering from a multinational manufacturer.
If the big boys cannot lead by example, what hope is there for the
IT industry?
James Barton, marketing director, SilverBug
Continuity need not trouble the board
Russell Flower's article (Computer Weekly, 10 August) rightly
pointed out that business continuity and IT security are integral
to protecting the corporate reputation and needs to be high on the
agenda.
Although business and IT continuity are valid topics for the
boardroom, we should be careful that the need for board-level
attention does not fuel the view that such issues can only be
properly addressed if significant resources are made available to
support the required investments.
In fact, most UK businesses could improve their levels of
resilience for a modest or even neutral investment. And these steps
can be taken now - without waiting for the expensive preparatory
consultancy.
It is extraordinary how many companies allow their
business-critical applications to run on servers located in a
basement or in the corner of an office with no uninterruptible
power supply, unsuitable cooling and expensive connectivity.
The costs involved in moving these servers to a third-party
datacentre would be quickly won back by savings made in management
resource, space and power, and improvements in the levels of
resilience can be increased dramatically.
Such decisions do not need to be made at board level, nor involve
prior external strategic advice.
Matthew Gingell, marketing director, TeleCity
