Australian Linux community applauds Warez raids

The Linux community has applauded the recent police raids on the Australian Warez community, saying that stamping out pirated software will make open source alternatives more attractive.

-This is great for Linux," Con Zymaris, CEO of specialist IT services company Cybersource, told ZDNet Australia. "The more pressure that is applied to everyone to be legal with their software, the more acutely attractive Linux and open source software look."

According to Cybersource, which carried out analysis of the licensing requirements of organisations that employ 50, 100 and 250 staff who use computers, companies can save from AU$160,000 to AU$550,000 on licence fees alone if they use Linux & OSS rather than Windows & Microsoft technologies.

From Microsoft's point of view it's been a case of -don't spook the horses before you've got them corralled off," Zymaris said. However, now that the software giant has reached market saturation point and is struggling to get new customers it is cranking up the heat in making everything legal and more expensive as well as putting licensing restrictions on users resulting in more businesses considering the open source, he added.

"In order to get out of a Windows world they need a damn good reason," he said.

-The more people are forced to look at the licensing costs of Windows...the more seriously I think they'll start looking at free cost software," he added. -More and more are saying to us 'give us a cost reason to take it to our financial people to convince them to move to Linux'."

Other Linux enthusiasts have also applauded the dawn raids on premises countrywide as part of an international crackdown on pirated software.

"Windows XP and the Business Software Association of Australia (BSAA) do a great job in promoting open source software un-intentionally, - another ZDNet reader said. -That's great. Monopolies need competition."

Another ZDNet reader, calling himself Little John of Sherwood Forest, said: -I buy shareware all the time. I am happy to pay $30, $40 or $50 for product... but $400, 500 or $1000? I think not." However, -the only thing that these types of 'crackdowns' do is to make sure that some monopolistic crusher of free enterprise makes an addition billion dollars this year to intimidate governments with, whilst destroying any hope of you and me getting a real choice in computing platforms. I am against theft just as much as the next guy, but in the real world I will give a lot more support to the Robin Hoods of the world than to the Adolf Hitlers. Are you a merry man or a brownshirt?

Microsoft has been contacted for comment.

Advertisement

Print feature brought to you by Hewlett Packard

Talkback 19 comments

    I can't wait to see Microsoft's slimy response.Anonymous -- 17/12/01

    I can't wait to see Microsoft's slimy response.

    Frankly, I'm surprised that Linux supporters are willing to pay anything for software. After all, companies like Red Hat are really hurting when their cash flow depends on support contracts. They must really weep when thousands of downloads of tJohnny Dulles -- 18/12/01

    Frankly, I'm surprised that Linux supporters are willing to pay anything for software.

    After all, companies like Red Hat are really hurting when their cash flow depends on support contracts. They must really weep when thousands of downloads of their software occur right before their eyes and not a dime goes to the shareholders- or their developers. It's white knuckle experience to run a business on the hope that someone may call THEM with a problem the user is willing to pay to have solved.

    Litle John's petty rationalization of what is "good theft" and what is "bad theft" leaves a lot to be desired. I don't see people being tortured and put into prison for NOT buying software (or paying their taxes). Software Piracy exists because people see VALUE in what they are willing to try to steal. There is a demand for this stuff.

    Con Zymaris is blowing smoke if he is trying to create value by starting with the premise that it should have no cost attached to it.

    Response to Johnny Dulles He states: "Frankly, I'm surprised that Linux supporters are willing to pay anything for software." As a company, we have paid thousands for numerous packages that run on Linux, and have purcCon Zymaris -- 18/12/01

    Response to Johnny Dulles

    He states:
    "Frankly, I'm surprised that Linux supporters are willing to pay anything for software."

    As a company, we have paid thousands for numerous packages that run on Linux, and have purchased numerous Linux boxed sets from vendors; more often than not, as a show of financial support. We find that the less we have to pay for core platforms and infrastructure technologies, the more we have available for ancillary line-of-business software and services (support, training etc.)

    Secondly, he says:
    "They must really weep when thousands of downloads of their software occur right before their eyes and not a dime goes to the shareholders- or their developers."

    I presume Dulles is conginscant of the fact that Red Hat does not write, let alone 'own' the vast majority of the software which ships with their boxed set, so they have no reason whatsoever to 'weep.' I know that Red Hat is very well aware of the massive advantages that the open source developement model (and community) bestows upon their firm. Their business model has always been the creation of value added business and support services atop the software, and not the software itself. This is why they have a strong focus on enterprise support and training. And for those that don't think that enterprise support and training is a viable business, go talk to IBM, which makes 60% of its multi-billion-dollar a-year profit from these.

    Lastly, Dulles states:
    "Con Zymaris is blowing smoke if he is trying to create value by starting with the premise that it should have no cost attached to it."

    I am merely stating the reality of open source software: there is no licence cost involved. If organisations are offering competing products and platforms, they had better be offering some seriously good advantages with these products, because as far as value goes, open source can't be beat. This is one of the reasons we recommend to the Australian IT industry: "go with the services model". The less money your clients have to spend on licences (money which almost always drifts-off overseas) the more IT budget money is available to organisations to hire and keep IT staff and to hire IT services firms. It's a simple equation.

    Just another excuse for the desperate open source community to blow their own trumpet. I am sick of hearing that open source is better. It simply is not. The open source community is just an underground movement which pushes the false beliebigbrother -- 18/12/01

    Just another excuse for the desperate open source community to blow their own trumpet.
    I am sick of hearing that open source is better.
    It simply is not.
    The open source community is just an underground movement which pushes the false belief of freedom.
    Big brother is watching and he is not pleased.

    They are cracking down on piracy here in China too, but the police haven't quite got the knack yet - they confiscate all the Linux disks too! I have to write a letter to the provincial Police Chief, I guess.Anonymous -- 18/12/01

    They are cracking down on piracy here in China too, but the police haven't quite got the knack yet - they confiscate all the Linux disks too! I have to write a letter to the provincial Police Chief, I guess.

    reply for bigbrother; if you can show some evidence to support your "simply it is not" as regards to open source being better, then maybe you can make such a statement. as it is you are quite simply wrong un numerous cases. linux as a Anonymous -- 18/12/01

    reply for bigbrother;

    if you can show some evidence to support your "simply it is not" as regards to open source being better, then maybe you can make such a statement. as it is you are quite simply wrong un numerous cases. linux as a scalable mainframe OS, apache as the worlds premier webserver, mission critical systems rarely using MS products...the list goes on but i wont.

    facts are required to back up statements such as yours. provide some and i wont think your just a microserf, fronting the MS line of propaganda

    I love the fact that sites using linux or variants of unix running on PC's are top heavy service wise. Beleive it or not, a lot of people are comfortable with pressing control alt delete when their machine crashes on a windows platform, and willDamon Wynne -- 18/12/01

    I love the fact that sites using linux or variants of unix running on PC's are top heavy service wise.

    Beleive it or not, a lot of people are comfortable with pressing control alt delete when their machine crashes on a windows platform, and will happily go on until the next crash.

    Whereas the sites that have (attempted to) deployed linux to the workstation have found that their small group of full time employed support staff has suddenly leapt to 3 or 4 times the number, and they are all swamped with work. Users appear to be taking an extraordinarily long time becoming familiar with various different interfaces (this could be deliberate on the case of several individuals who resist change) and applications.

    Simple equation:

    Licensing cost per year for 300 machines:

    0 dollars with linux, $150000 ($500 a machine) for windows

    Support staff of 3 people $150000 with windows

    Support staff of 9 people $450000 with Linux.

    Oops.. Customer just lost out on $150000 (EACH YEAR)

    Gradually you would hope that over several years that some of the people would stop panicing when something went wrong, but its unlikely.

    I also haven't gone into external contracting expenses and trainging for existing support staff etc...

    Deployements are still a nightmare, and it is all to do with lack of familiarity with the product. There is not a great deal of expertise in the business space for a help desk role with linux (et al) experience. Until the ease of installation (to the point where a hardware vendor has a help desk operator with linux knowledge) escalates to that of Windows, most of the sites I know will not go to Linux regardless of the cost of licensing. They simply can't afford to keep bringing high priced contractual support for what should be a help desk role.

    Don't get me wrong either, I support the role of Linux in the business environment, and I love that people want to advocate it, but you can not simply push a product based on zero licensing costs. I use several linux servers for different roles in different environments, but if I want to show some serious duty of care to the client, I must use a recognized OS like Windows, simply because that is what the customer wants and needs, regardless if I think Linux would do a better job.

    Wake up people, I have finished dribbling now....

    My Windows-happy friend may finally have to come clean. I can't see him being able to actually pay for the circa 40GB of software in his collection. As more people are pushed around like this (and never mind the legality or otherwise), they'll beging to tImparable Pingüino -- 18/12/01

    My Windows-happy friend may finally have to come clean. I can't see him being able to actually pay for the circa 40GB of software in his collection. As more people are pushed around like this (and never mind the legality or otherwise), they'll beging to truly understand the rapacious character of the entity behind it all.

    Damon is right Linux support costs are far higher than Windows support costs. The problem with Linux is that to many things are either partially functional, non-functional, non-existent or counter intuitive. Fonts are abAnonymous -- 18/12/01

    Damon is right

    Linux support costs are far higher than Windows support costs.

    The problem with Linux is that to many things are either partially functional, non-functional, non-existent or counter intuitive.

    Fonts are absolutely appalling,
    web sites don't display properly,
    drivers are an omnipresent nightmare
    and the desktops are designed in a way that most people would prefer not to use them.

    Linux is not wanted by manufacturers because you don't waste money on a few users when you could service a 90% market share with the same research resources instead.

    To the Linux folks:
    If you guys and girls wanted to design a system that most people prefer not to use, then you succeeded.

    If only you could buy a laptop WITHOUT windows on it! then this would make a diff, everyone who has bought a laptop has paid a MS due, even if they use Linux! HAHA MS wins in the end!Anonymous -- 18/12/01

    If only you could buy a laptop WITHOUT windows on it! then this would make a diff, everyone who has bought a laptop has paid a MS due, even if they use Linux! HAHA MS wins in the end!

    Damon states: "Whereas the sites that have (attempted to) deployed linux to the workstation have found that their small group of full time employed support staff has suddenly leapt to 3 or 4 times the number, and they are all swamped wCon Zymaris -- 18/12/01

    Damon states:

    "Whereas the sites that have (attempted to) deployed linux to the workstation have found that their small group of full time employed
    support staff has suddenly leapt to 3 or 4 times the number, and they are all swamped with work."

    Damon, do you have such reference sites where there have been many Linux-workstations installed at non-technical organisations? I am a very keen observer of the Australian Linux landscape, and I know of few large-scale deployments of Linux workstations outside technology-related companies. This is now starting to change, as a result of licence-compliance crackdows (which is the reason for this article) and the ongoing spike in relative cost of software compared to hardware in recent years. Our calculations show that you need around $2000 to $3000
    worth of systems and bare-minimum desktop productivity sofftare if you go with a Windows/Microsoft solution, every 2-3 years. Because of this, many companies are looking to deploy Linux workstations to compliment the Linux servers they have been deploying (and finding reliable and cost-effective) over these past 3 years.

    Damon states:

    "Licensing cost per year for 300 machines:
    0 dollars with linux, $150000 ($500 a machine) for windows"

    If you really want to compare licence costs, download our research from here:

    http://www.cyber.com.au/cyber/about/linux_vs_windows_pricing_comparison.pdf

    In this document you will find URLs for software licences from Microsoft, cost calculations for average network servers and
    workstations for various-sized organisations. These are hard numbers, with real evidence. What you present above is pure guesswork.

    Now, you also state:

    "Support staff of 3 people $150000 with windows"
    "Support staff of 9 people $450000 with Linux."

    This is more guesswork, and runs counter to everything the company I
    work for has encountered these past 10 years in supporting both Windows
    and Unix/Linux systems. Our reckoning is that it is *much* cheaper to
    support Unix/Linux systems. You can imagine why:

    1) Linux systems hardly ever crash,
    2) Linux systems run at high performance,
    3) Linux systems can be supported remotely.

    Unfortunately for all the industry, there have been no conculsive
    surveys done on this topic of TCO. However, I have been in communication
    with IT consultants in the UK who are garnering information about some
    large Linux workstation deployments and the massive reduction in TCO
    which ensues. I will repost part of the their information to me here:

    Insurance Broker chain - Hill House Hammond, you may have
    seen a little about them in the trade press. Somehow, they were
    induced by IBM to go Linux for a new front-desk system.
    Apart from the software cost reduction they discovered
    that desktop support costs reduced to just 10% of what they had been
    with a Windows based system - might be worth mentioning. Detail seems
    to be available from IBM's web sites.

    Yes, you read that right: their total cost of support when switching to
    Linux-based workstations dropped by _90%_.

    If you do a search on Google.com with the right keywords, you can find
    out more information on the Hill House Hammond deployment.

    Another site with over 900 Linux desktops is the City of Largo in
    Florida, who have also found a substantial reduction in TCO when moving
    to Linux. See this news article:

    NewsForge: Secretaries use Linux, taxpayers save millions

    These are hard figures, with real enterprise sites. Damon, I'll wait for
    you to post in here reference sites with verifiable information about
    Linux costing _more_ than Windows to support.

    Let me say finally that I have over 13 years experience, with over 11
    different versions of Windows (from 2.0/386 through to Windows 2000.) In
    this time, I have seen most users pushed through several large jumps in
    text and GUI interfaces for Windows. Getting these users to evenutally
    move to Linux will be about as hard as

    completed previous post... This seem to be truncated from the previous post. also, here is the URL for the article on the City of Largo: http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/08/10/1441239&mode=thread Let me say finally tCon Zymaris -- 18/12/01

    completed previous post... This seem to be truncated from the previous post.

    also, here is the URL for the article on the City of Largo:
    http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/08/10/1441239&mode=thread

    Let me say finally that I have over 13 years experience, with over 11
    different versions of Windows (from 2.0/386 through to Windows 2000.) In
    this time, I have seen most users pushed through several large jumps in
    text and GUI interfaces for Windows. Getting these users to evenutally
    move to Linux will be about as hard as getting them to move from 3.11 to
    95. It's not a case of 'if', but 'when'. The cost savings and cost
    reductions of running Linux are too important for business to ignore.
    Business that aren't looking at Linux to reduce IT costs are being
    negligent to their stakeholders and staff. And we have seen in recent
    times what happens to many businesses that don't control their cost
    structures.

    As always, I'm happy to debate with real data, real sites and real
    experiences. Email me for more.

    ps: to those that sign on as Anonymous: If you expect to be taken
    seriously in debate, you have to present yourself in toto, and show your
    credentials. You otherwise do a dis-service to your arguments.

    Interesting, the comments on support staff. I know a company that runs 3 Unix servers only PHONE BASED SUPPORT (1 call every month or so) and ONE windows box with 1 full time staff and two consultants. I guess it just depends on Brent R Brian -- 19/12/01

    Interesting, the comments on support staff.

    I know a company that runs 3 Unix servers only PHONE BASED SUPPORT (1 call every month or so) and ONE windows box with 1 full time staff
    and two consultants.

    I guess it just depends on who you hire.

    B

    The arguement between so called "Open Source" and "Closed Source" products is a virtaul irrelevancy in today's IT Marketplace. I recently had a 700 seat rollout project and the cost savings involved in the use of Star Office and MS OffNick Stranks -- 19/12/01

    The arguement between so called "Open Source" and "Closed Source" products is a virtaul irrelevancy in today's IT Marketplace. I recently had a 700 seat rollout project and the cost savings involved in the use of Star Office and MS Office was not considered to be a major factor.
    Yes, $700,000 dollars is a lot of money, but in the scale of a $150million per year turnover company it is a drop in the ocean. If I can get a 1% efficiency improvement average across the board, then I save the company $1.5million this year. It is as simple as that. This efficiency comes in the form of less training, (as we are used to the current products) more avaliable support staff (and thus cheaper) and the major factor is: that the customers are using the products and therefore why risk it?

    $700K and at least 1% improvement in efficiency is worth more than the risk factors and associated costs of "Open Source" implimentation.

    Please note that this would be the case regardless of whether the software was Office or "Non-Microsoft" I think that this is more of a correct intrepretation of the debate, rather than "Open-Source" vs "Closed Source"

    Response to Nick Stranks... Nick writes: "The arguement between so called "Open Source" and "Closed Source" products is a virtaul irrelevancy in today's IT Marketplace." Nick this is your opiniCon Zymaris -- 19/12/01

    Response to Nick Stranks...

    Nick writes:
    "The arguement between so called "Open Source" and "Closed Source"
    products is a virtaul irrelevancy in today's IT Marketplace."

    Nick this is your opinion and observation; mine differs markedly from
    yours. Further, as a matter of clear disclosure for purposes of debate,
    it should be noted that as you are the IT Enterprise Sales Manager of
    Harris Technology, a large software retailer with a substantial
    proportion of sales of 'closed source' systems and software, you have an
    obvious vested interest in espousing this line of argument. As for my
    disclosure, as a services company, we sell neither 'closed source' or
    'open source' software, and furthermore, we charge the same money when
    servicing closed source as well as open source systems. My advocacy for
    Linux is based on 22 years industry experience and comes as a
    recommendation of a best-of-breed platform for numerous technical and
    business reasons, and which also has the happy co-incidence of saving
    this country tens-of-millions in balance-of-trade payments by replacing
    costly, less robust and less secure incumbent software.

    You also state:
    "I recently had a 700 seat rollout project and the cost savings involved
    in the use of Star Office and MS Office was not considered to be a major
    factor. Yes, $700,000 dollars is a lot of money, but in the scale of a
    $150million per year turnover company it is a drop in the ocean. If I
    can get a 1% efficiency improvement average across the board, then I
    save the company $1.5million this year."

    My specific quibble with your response is lack of details. You mentioned
    that this company rolled out 700 new MS-Office systems. Which company is
    this? How many staff does this company have overall? How many overall
    computer-using staff does this company have? (This has bearing in terms
    of the cost-effectiveness of software solution you mention.) I would
    also question your $1.5 million dollar-a-year efficiency saving. Under
    what circumstances can you produce this efficiency figure? If it's an
    efficency purely by moving to MS-Office, what were they using prior to
    MS-Office? Further, how would you know that StarOffice wouldn't be even
    more efficient than MS-Office? I have used both office suites for
    several years, and I find little which distinguishes their operation and
    feature-set. The US DoD, which has moved 25,000 desktops across to
    StarOffice, seems to agree. Finally, what kind of profit does this
    company make each year? If it's making $2 million profit, then spending
    $700,000 in MS-Office would have reduced their profit by almost 1/3rd.
    If I was a shareholder in this company, I'd be substantially annoyed at
    this expenditure.

    The final and most important issue I have with your analysis of the
    efficiency is the following. Our research over the years indicates that
    users of Linux workstations suffer 95% _less_ downtime and
    work-disruption caused by their software than their Windows platform
    equivalents. By my reckinging, this means downtime is reduced from 20
    minutes per work-day (for Windows crashes and reboots) to 20 minutes per
    work month (equating to 20 days). As 20 minutes per work day is 4% of
    the working day, it is obvious that once past the transition phase of a
    migration, moving your client's 700 workstations to Linux and open
    source will save this company $1.5 million x 4 = $6.0 million, through
    your own efficiency calculation excercise. To cap this off, Linux is
    almost immune to virii, thus saving your client probably another million
    in anti-virus protection costs and downtime lost-productivity due to
    Windows virii. As you see, if you are able to pluck numbers from the
    aether, so am I.

    I await your responses to my questions with great interest.

    Sure Windows based products might be easier to use, sure users might be used to them (I seem to remember that people were used to driving horses and carriages around at one stage before we all had to learn how to drive a car). One thing I must ask is thisAnonymous -- 07/05/02

    Sure Windows based products might be easier to use, sure users might be used to them (I seem to remember that people were used to driving horses and carriages around at one stage before we all had to learn how to drive a car). One thing I must ask is this: has anyone ever tried to write a robust software system on a Windows box ?? you just can't do it (by robust i mean something that will run unattended for more than a week without requiring a service call). I have had C code from a very buggy Windows system ported over to Linux and the thing has been running for 3 and a half years without any maintenance required at all.
    I challenge anyone to get that result on any incarnation of Windoze.......

    I myself dont accknowledge copy right law's I think they cause far more problem's then there worth! your not going to stop people reguardless of how strick you get if anything your going to make it far worse! I dont have the statistic's butRobert -- 17/12/03

    I myself dont accknowledge copy right law's
    I think they cause far more problem's then there worth! your not going to stop people reguardless of how strick you get if anything your going to make it far worse!

    I dont have the statistic's but I bet if somebody was to do some research they would find that as the copy right law's have gotten more stricker the rate of piracy has increased! and let's face it some companys just dont use there Brain's let's take redhat linux for example there use to charge 39$ for support but they were loseing money to free support on the internet so in there infinte stupity they raise the price from 39$ to a 179$! Now here is a real Brain Buster for you
    1. To pay 179$
    2. To get totaly free help from hundred's of newsgroups and thousand's of website's
    (Yeap that's real hardone!)

    What it come's down to is very simple people want stuff for free! that's called (human nature) and as long as there is any chance of people getting it for (FREE) there going to do so reguardless of what the stupid law's say!

    So wake up face reality and stop your dam crying!

    I myself dont accknowledge copy right law's I think they cause far more problem's then there worth! your not going to stop people reguardless of how strick you get if anything your going to make it far worse! I dont have the statistic's butAnonymous -- 17/12/03

    I myself dont accknowledge copy right law's
    I think they cause far more problem's then there worth! your not going to stop people reguardless of how strick you get if anything your going to make it far worse!

    I dont have the statistic's but I bet if somebody was to do some research they would find that as the copy right law's have gotten more stricker the rate of piracy has increased! and let's face it some companys just dont use there Brain's let's take redhat linux for example there use to charge 39$ for support but they were loseing money to free support on the internet so in there infinte stupity they raise the price from 39$ to a 179$! Now here is a real Brain Buster for you
    1. To pay 179$
    2. To get totaly free help from hundred's of newsgroups and thousand's of website's
    (Yeap that's real hardone!)

    What it come's down to is very simple people want stuff for free! that's called (human nature) and as long as there is any chance of people getting it for (FREE) there going to do so reguardless of what the stupid law's say!

    So wake up face reality and stop your dam crying!

    What's missing here, especially from the hysterical rant by the Linux_Nazi quoted in the penultimate paragraph, is the fact that Aussie cops, like cops in the US, UK, Finland and other countries were ENFORCING the law. Commercial pirates are no Anonymous -- 22/02/04

    What's missing here, especially from the hysterical rant by the Linux_Nazi quoted in the penultimate paragraph, is the fact that Aussie cops, like cops in the US, UK, Finland and other countries were ENFORCING the law.

    Commercial pirates are no different than fences, in fact, that's what they often are. Someone gives them source code or they crack an off-the-shelf version, they are still trafficking in stolen goods.

    Love or hate MSFT, they are protected by the law like any other company and are entitled to its protection--just as the are required to abide by it. Those who complain that MSFT hasn't been "punished" properly for it's allegedly anti-competitive behavior now scream that it isn't entitled to the same protection of the law its competitors are.

    Am I the only one who sees how oxymoronic the words and well as the cognitive dissonance of this line of thought?

Add your opinion


Latest Videos

Blogs

  • Juha Saarinen TelstraUnClear
    Telstra's New Zealand arm TelstraClear is one strange company ...
  • Array E-health too unsexy for COAG
    There will always be something more politically sexy than e-health for state governments, meaning the National E-Health Transition Authority's business case for a national electronic medical record might just sit on the shelf gathering dust forever.
  • Array Will Rudd's bush backhaul bonanza deliver?
    Rural areas will be welcoming the government's decision to put its money where its politicising is, funnelling $250m into a regional fibre upgrade to six rural centres. Remedying over a decade of near-neglect at the hands of telecoms privatisation, the investment could be the firmest step yet for Labor's NBN dream — but with inevitable political questions and a looming election, Rudd and Conroy need to deliver, and quickly, to preserve the NBN's credibility.
  • More blogs »

Tags

  1. 469 articles are tagged with 3g
  2. 5 articles are tagged with 3g s
  3. 7 articles are tagged with 3gs
  4. 430 articles are tagged with accc
  5. 72 articles are tagged with act
  6. 22 articles are tagged with anao
  7. 1251 articles are tagged with apple
  8. 129 articles are tagged with ato
  9. 35 articles are tagged with audit
  10. 18 articles are tagged with backhaul
  11. 19 articles are tagged with basslink
  12. 1260 articles are tagged with broadband
  13. 194 articles are tagged with budget
  14. 8 articles are tagged with cenitex
  15. 202 articles are tagged with ceo
  16. 52 articles are tagged with cepu
  17. 638 articles are tagged with cio
  18. 188 articles are tagged with conroy
  19. 117 articles are tagged with contract
  20. 20 articles are tagged with david thodey
  21. 50 articles are tagged with e-health
  22. 176 articles are tagged with eds
  23. 90 articles are tagged with gmail
  24. 1017 articles are tagged with google
  25. 968 articles are tagged with government
  26. 764 articles are tagged with hp
  27. 1271 articles are tagged with ibm
  28. 179 articles are tagged with iinet
  29. 333 articles are tagged with iphone
  30. 267 articles are tagged with isp
  31. 1418 articles are tagged with microsoft
  32. 32 articles are tagged with minchin
  33. 1100 articles are tagged with mobile
  34. 324 articles are tagged with mobile phone
  35. 144 articles are tagged with national broadband network
  36. 255 articles are tagged with nbn
  37. 175 articles are tagged with nsw
  38. 835 articles are tagged with optus
  39. 141 articles are tagged with police
  40. 149 articles are tagged with queensland
  41. 1270 articles are tagged with software
  42. 134 articles are tagged with stephen conroy
  43. 159 articles are tagged with sydney
  44. 90 articles are tagged with tasmania
  45. 216 articles are tagged with telco
  46. 2272 articles are tagged with telstra
  47. 97 articles are tagged with union
  48. 150 articles are tagged with victoria
  49. 314 articles are tagged with vodafone
  50. 69 articles are tagged with windows 7

Back to top

Featured