[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
> Theoretically, they should already be in compliance with the licenses > for the sw they have. Why would you think they would need to buy more > sw, to continue in the development vein they've chosen? I never saw this to be true in a large enough workplace. > > Did you see how much this sw costs (w/ audit)? Surely the savings here > > alone would allow someone to do what would take a competent developer a > > few hours (scripting). > > The sw should have already been paid for. And obviously they've made > their decision to go with MS products, and it's attendent yearly > costs.So all these costs are almost certainly accounted for, and > budgeted for. I know ours are - every year, I have to add up what the > yearly licensing fees for Veritas, etc, are and we budget that in. I know, how much does this cost? Surely less to make a web site for all using compliant products. > And switching over would provide a costs savings, but in a longer run, > since you've got to convert and test everything, and then run both > systems in parallel for at least a little while, unless you want to take > the chance of switching cold turkey, and hoping it all goes smooth. That's not how compliant pages need to work. You need very little code. Just a part to detect browser, then send them to static pages. Again, I'm assuming these people have brains enough to code html, etc. Yes, a switch would probably cost more for the first year b/c they all ready paid all their licenses for the whole year, and so on. I'm thinking of had they done this right to begin w/. Anyway, w/ all this typing, we could have probably written the scripts to fix everything all ready. :) Fred ______________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://www.phillylinux.org Announcements-http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion - http://lists.phillylinux.org/mail/listinfo/plug