If MS tell them that in order to upgrade their 1000s of workstations, they will also have to re-write every application they use; or apply in writing to MS (or any 3rd party body), to have their existing in-house and 3rd party applications 'signed off', the impact of the upgrade would just be too costly and too risky to contemplate.
You've got to think like a salesman. Present it as an opportunity. Now the IS department can finally enforce all of its regulations on which software is officially approved for use. No more worries about viruses/trojans. No more employees goofing off playing computer games. And it won't be any more of a burden to implement this, than it currently is to negotiate their site license. Banks and governments are the first customers who would sign up for this feature. Rogue bank employees won't be able to sell internal/sensitive documents, because they'll only be decryptable on authorized bank computers. Government beauracrats will be less able to leak stuff to the press. And MS won't go to the bother of trying to certify that the custom programs you want signed are reliable. They'll just have a rubber stamp approval for any binary you submit. Of course, you'll get to pay for the priveledge. And they'll be running as second class citizens, without full access to every part of the system, otherwise you could possibly compromise the whole scheme. But it'll mostly work.Can you imagine every bank, government dept. etc., having to supply the source code of their proprietary and commercially sensitive applications to MS or some 3rd party clearing house organisation before they can run them?
In reply to Re^6: Future of Perl on Win32?
by Anonymous Monk
in thread Future of Perl on Win32?
by bowei_99
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |