It seems safe to assume that there's at least one state computer per state employee, and that the computers have an average life cycle of three years, so the state probably purchases about 20,000 new computers every year. It also seems safe to assume that at least 95 percent of these come with a Microsoft operating system and that at least half of them come with Microsoft applications like Works, Word and Office.

So it would appear that the average state computer might have about $200 worth of Microsoft software. Run that across 20,000 new computers a year, and that's $4 million a year that leaves our state to enrich people in the state of Washington.

If the state just switched to Linux (or free BSD, for that matter), most of that money would stay here. Further, with the state setting the example, many local governments (162,000 employees in 1999) would doubtless follow suit.

Hi Ed,

Regarding your article in today's Denver Post at
[link|http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E73%257E1123977,00.html|http://www.denverpos...7E1123977,00.html]

Bravo.

I can think of nothing better to boost our tech economy than the state government implementing an Open Source Software mandate.

I must slighty disagree on one point, however. Should the state announce it is considering Linux, Microsoft, as you noted, will probably counter with offers of $X worth of free software. To accept this is a bad idea for the following reasons:

1) While it temporarily stops the flow of cash to Redmond, it would only last, at best, a year. Then Microsoft's subscription licensing would kick in.

2) It does nothing to bolster the states' long-term economic growth.

3) It sends a very loud message to other corporate interests that we can be bought, regardless of the right and most beneficial action for the state.

Thanks for a great piece, may it not fall on deaf ears!



________________
Steve Lowe