[OSGeo-Discuss] Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)

[Dave McIlhagga]

Nice post :D

Sent from my iPhone

On 2010-03-27, at 11:01 AM, "Zak James" <zjames at dmsolutions.ca> wrote:

>
>
> --
> Zak James
> Applications and Software Development
> DM Solutions Group Inc.
> http://www.dmsolutions.ca
> http://research.dmsolutions.ca
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Puttick
> Sent:  26.03.2010 17:54:39
> To: OSGeo Discussions
> Subject:  Re: [OSGeo-Discuss] Re: Whitebox GAT (Chris Puttick)
>
> Terribly off-topic now, so feel free to stop reading...
>
> ----- "Brian Russo" <brian at beruna.org> wrote:
>
>> It wasn't directed at you Chris, nor specifically at anyone.
>>
>> I just think the general tone of this conversation is pretty
>> unproductive. Sure people have reasons about "being" strategic"
>> everything but maybe it's just how I'm reading it but I just see the
>> old, familiar tones of the "Free Software Movement" which is "do it
>> my
>> way (100% free) or the highway". I don't think that helps anyone..
>
> You can take it on faith or a Google that I'm pragmatic on the  
> issue. I've explained why I think .net is a poor strategic choice,  
> and that my motivations are strategic. I am all too well aware that  
> many IT decisions are based on convenience and short term outlook,  
> and pretty sure that's a major factor in...
>
>>
>> It's all well and good if you're in a small organisation with 300 pcs
>> or whatever like Chris P and you have that sort of latitude.. but
>> people forget that most organisations aren't driven by cost or
>> ideology - they're driven by business value. Openness is no different
>> than being Green/Sustainable. It has to make good business sense in
>> order to be the right decision. I can't go to my bosses and say "we
>> have to do this because it's open source". They won't care and I
>> don't
>> blame them.
>
> ...not realising high or often any business value. Business value is  
> where what you expend money and get more in return than you spent.  
> Incredibly easy to measure in small businesses with few employees  
> and a simple business model, harder the larger the business or the  
> more complex the concept of value becomes e.g. in a charity or  
> government organisation. There is good evidence that collectively  
> western economies have spent more on IT than they have realised in  
> value.
>
> The business case is not simple, any more than it is in marketing;  
> but here's my base position in simple terms. I select solutions that  
> maximise our future choices and reduce our costs; a further benefit  
> is derived if I can move any remaining costs from fixed annual  
> overhead to per employee or pure capital; while there may be short  
> term pain as people get used to the changes, any increase in costs  
> for that short period will be more than offset by the long term  
> decrease in costs and increases in flexibility for the organisation.
>
> Luckily for me I don't have to justify to others other than in my  
> long term results. I'm aware that this continues to be a rare  
> privilege for the top of the information systems tree and that many  
> organisations continue to not have technical expertise at the  
> highest level, resulting in many decisions in that area being taken  
> with the wrong information and wrong motivations. I'm working on  
> that too.
>
> There are other aspects to openness that may derive negative value  
> for some organisations e.g. opening data - great for archaeology,  
> bankruptcy for marketing companies, a matter for the courts for  
> financial companies. But open source solutions for your  
> organisation's IT has no downsides. Unless there are no open source  
> solutions that can be made to do the job.
>
> Sorry this thread has deteriorated into a management philosophy  
> discussion. I'm here mostly for the open, I'm not so strong on the  
> geospatial...
>
> Cheers
>
> Chris
>
>
> ------
> Files attached to this email may be in ISO 26300 format (OASIS Open  
> Document Format). If you have difficulty opening them, please visit http://iso26300.info 
>  for more information.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.osgeo.org
> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss