The thing about moves like this is they are looked in far too short-term of a mindset. The technologies needed to do $things are an investment over time, one th

The thing about moves like this is they are looked in far too short-term of a mindset. The technologies needed to do $things are an investment over time, one that I have seen repeatedly backfire in choosing proprietary software the longer that time goes on. It's not just about the budget for the next year or five, it's about freeing yourself from the technical limitations, the legal limitations, and by what I call death by a thousand cuts licensing fees. Sure, the initial pain of a relatively rough transition such as this is going to be higher than expected when this isn't taken into consideration, because you are going to have to find or pay to dev all those tiny little proprietary programs that have attached themselves like a virus to your budget and replacement them. If anything, I would say the pains of Munich make an even stronger case for breaking through the spell of proprietary programs. I do have to say though, I think Ubuntu was a bad choice for the distro. That being said, as I said in the other related thread, and as seems to be verified by the poster who worked there, I highly suspect half of the problem is a lack of budget and an overworked/understaffed IT team. You know, I just thought of something, if "The user controls the program, or the program controls the user." Could you say then, that "The government controls the software, or the software controls the government."?