Slashdot Mirror
Partnership Initiatives In Companies That Support OSS?
reptyle asks: "Over Xmas dinner, a friend of the family told us she was considering
launching a partnership between her employer FNMA (colloquially known as Fannie Mae; they are a semi-private company that guarantees mortgages) and Microsoft to provide training and eventually, surplus hardware to private individuals and non-profit outfits. I lamented this choice and she suggested that I e-mail her names and URLs of companies as alternative recommendations. So far I have come up with: Debian, Red Hat (distributions), VA Linux, Penguin (hardware companies), and maybe a few non-profit advocacy groups, but I think the list is still a bit too short. I can't think of any other entities that might be appropriate so I figured I'd ask Slashdot readers for help in providing other organizations that I may have missed. I don't care whether the organization uses Linux or BSD, just as long as it's not a proprietary model."
If there is someone to support it, I think that Linux with either KDE or Gnome is at least as easy as learning your way around windows... I have experience to support this claim working at a company with 5000 people on SUN boxes using mainly MWM's root-menu to pick their applications. The interface isn't such a problem.
The problem is applications... if they want to use MSWord then they should probably use Windows.
The problem, however, of course is that it is immoral to support a company that uses unethical business practices. So MS and Apple would be out. Apple would probably be out anyway due to the higher cost and marginal and questionable benefit in the easy-to-learn category.
Of course, if they just want to have a web browser, then any linux variant is probably fine.
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
They'd probably want equipment and software they are familliar with, since they probably couldn't afford support should their *BSD or *nix knowledge be close to nil, which I imagine it might be.
It's possible, but in my experience, many non-profits don't actually have a real computer support person, especially the smaller organizations, which is apparently who they are planning to deal with. They often have someone who can do basic computer tasks, but don't really have any experience setting up a network or anything like that. You could give them NT and they would probably do a worse job setting it up than they would with Linux, just because they could get NT up and running without much help, but it would be horribly insecure and probably quite unstable as well. Whereas with Linux, they know that they don't know what they're doing and will be likely to find some instructions for doing it right. Additionally, there is tons of free information out there to help you with Linux.
In the end, it's really up to the organization to decide who to go with. If Linux meets their needs as well as Windows (with the positives and negatives of both considered), then there is no reason not to use it.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm not saying that Microsoft or anyone else is doing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone is suggesting it to them.
I would be completely and utterly amazed if they weren't doing it. Microsoft is known for their creative bookkeeping.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Thus: If they contribute software that they are claiming is worth $10,000, they will have the transaction:
Sale of Software Credit $10,000
Donation Expense Debit $10,000
Which means that while they got a deduction of $10,000, it is irrelevant, as they had to correspondingly have an income of $10,000.
Those are the critical additions to the financial records; the costs already having been borne and deducted.
If they decided to value the software at $1M, then what happens is:
Sale of Software Credit $1M
Donation Expense Debit $1M
Where the impact on taxation is again, nothing, because the $1M donation deduction is balanced by the $1M sale.
In accounting, the debits and credits have to balance. They can play all sorts of games, pushing the incomes and expenses hither and thither, and they still have to have them balance, which means that if they declare the value of the donation to be "too high," some sort of income in that "too high" amount has to come in somewhere.
Note that we could change the numbers again, valuing the donation at $1:
Sale of Software Credit $1
Donation Expense Debit $1
and the impact for tax purposes, due to the balancing out of sale-versus-deduction, is again $0.
In effect, the value they choose should be irrelevant from a tax perspective.
The good reason to inflate the value is to get the potlatch ego boost of being able to claim to have given away gifts of Immense Value.
Unless the IRS provides a way to "double-count" donations, in which case the bigger the number the better...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Private companies with a proprietary $$$ product to promote can do their own publicity and partnerships. Sure, Red Hat, VA, etc. are all private companies with $$$ products, but the free software community shouldn't rely on them for the promotion of free software products. If they will, though, what's wrong with helping them meet potential customers? I don't think it's wrong to be an open source advocate.
Especially as this is a public forum, and you seem to be revealing early stage business plans...
The results of this post, if you're doing this without permission from her or her managers are likely to be that this won't happen now at all, thanks to your publishing it to several hundred thousand people around the world.
I'm sure the non-profits will be really grateful not to get anything now..
S.
So, I should buy gas from a company regularily pollutes and kills ecosystems and people because their products are more ubiquitous and has pay-at-the-pump service? There is nothing holy about Microsoft making a profit. I bet I'd be able to make a fat profit too if I got to commit felonies in the process.
Microsoft is an organization that stands convicted of felony conduct. Why should some non-profit who presumably wishes to make moral choices choose to use their products and encourage their behavior? How are they a 'better' choice?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
I agree with the above poster. Furthermore, Microsoft has more resources (and, since they are for-profit and like to get the mad tax deductions) lots of motivation to devote resources to 501.c(3) qualified charities.
That is the very reason that I think they should be trained on non-MS stuff. If the users don't care whose plan they are following, then let it be the geeks'.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
The first batch of responses (of course, I'll check back in a few hours) has contained some useful ideas, not least being the outright negative responses. The points which really hit home with me are the following:
<ul>
<li>going for OSS for OSS' sake is no better than going for Microsoft, just because one is the alternative and the other the giant.
<li>Companies with business clout also have the advantage of having the resources and the history of reliable follow-up -- making them better candidates, in some people's opinions
<li>ironically, M$' antecedent on Antitrust Row, IBM, has turned out to be one of the Alternative's best allies in this effort.
<li>a lesson I seem to have to relearn annually -- initial cost benefit does not guarantee long term cost benefit -- if a charity/501(c)3 gets something for free, but it sits on a shelf and no one uses it, who has gained a thing?
<li>...and finally, if I want to do this as I feel it should be done, I need to invest my own time,know-how, and other resources.</ul>
<p>
As self-evident as these may sound, the fact they got aired by a number of people bodes well for my family's friend...it suggests that where ever she turns if she takes my counsel (which, at this time, will be a mixed bag), she can be assured of people with good sense lurking in every corner. I want to thank those who chimed in rationally and with substantive suggestions.
If virtue is its own reward, jsut imagine what vice offers!
I think there is some misconception of the term "monopoly" here. You don't have to be the sole company in the market to be a monopoly. Being the by far biggest company is enough. Under certain circumstances this is a crime, but not always. Such circumstances can include using your existing monopoly position in one market to gain a monopoly position in another market. That's what the Microsoft trial is about.
Your second comment makes no sense. What are thousands of Slashdot users against billions of software users world-wide? And don't forget, a majority of Slashdot users use Windows. This fact has proven itself on numerous occasions in polls, and CmdrTaco has mentioned it at least once.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
I agree with you here. I believe this perception is utterly lame and wrong, but I have to agree that it's common. At least in the US, it seems.
About MS, what is there market they have a monopoly in? Tell me that. OS's you say, thats typical. Thats what everyone thinks But tell me, do they have a monopoly?
Yes. Also in the web browser business nowadays.
YOu say they are because they dont open docs, api's or whatnot. That is not a legal requirement.
Well, it could have helped their case if they had done that. But now, this wasn't the situation, and hence they are accused of using monopoly tactics (not opening specs to the competition can be such a tactic, yes).
Yes, they should, but no, they dont have to. Ever.
I think it clearly shows that you don't understand laws against monopoly tactics. Yes, if you are in a monopoly position, you might very well be required to not further crush the competition by not providing for example specs or equal access in other ways.
Besides that, you and I know that there are other OS's out there. Why dont they package ever Compaq with linux? Why not? Because no one wants linux.
I guess the fact that you can indeed buy Compaqs with Linux on them directly from Compaq shows how insanely wrong you are in your arguments.
People think linux sucks, or is hard to use. Right or wrong, thats the perception. Compaq, and its customers, want the features that MS offers - compatibility, software support, ease of use, etc.
The compability Microsoft provides is with other Microsoft products. Other types of compability has never been much of an interest to Microsoft.
Like it or not, thats true. Compaq could package Linux or FreeBSD with its computers, but doesnt
They do. Perhaps you should check your "facts"?
because sales would take a hit.
Gee, so providing more alternatives than just Windows preinstalled would make sales drop? What kind of "logic" is that? If you provide more alternatives, your number of sales either stays the same (in the worst case, because noone buys the new alternatives) or grows (because the new alternatives attract new customers). I think that the fact most famous computer vendors now happily ship computers with Linux proves that this segment is indeed also lucrative.
In fact, everyone who sells computers with Windows does so because it guarantees a certain level of compatibility.
Compatibility with other Microsoft products.
You cite Apple, Netscape, etc as being proof they are monopolies. The fact is, Netscape's product was made useless by MS, by bundling. Bundling is mostly and should be legal.
Gee, in this case maybe it isn't, because that might be considered an illegal monopoly tactic, given the situation. Once again, I think you show that you fail to understand anti-trust laws.
This move helped consumers
Reducing choice by surpressing the competition benefits consumers? How?
Browsers are now standard issue for every major OS. All of them. Before, you had to pay for them. MS helped us all there.
Yes, browsers are now standard issue. That does not mean that they have to be considered part of the OS (office software is standard issue, but also not a part of the OS), nor that we wouldn't have this situation anyway. The reason web browsers are now standard issue and popular apps is because the growth and popularity of the web. The reduction of web browser choice for the consumer on the major client platform is pretty irrelevant to the web explosion, I think.
The fact is, that MS is not, by any reasonable defintion a monopoly in OS's. They cannot control the market place for OS's, they cannot force a standard down everyone's throats (despite best efforts).
I think many people who have witnessed the home computer industry the last 15 years will disagree with you here. Microsoft has on numerous occasions tried to control their platform, and in many cases to reduce competition.
Just because they dont use 'industry standard' protocols or api's doesnt mean that they are breaking the law. Thats their choice.
Yes, it can indeed mean that they are breaking a law. That's what anti-trust laws are about. Some action that would otherwise not be illegal can be illegal if you are in a monopoly situation in your particular market. These regulations are to benefit the consumer by helping further healthy competition not to shrink below the low level that it already is in most monopoly situations.
GNU/Linux. The Freshmaker.
I'd add that there's not much in the way of programming tools that directly address a charity's area (gnucash?), but there's only a few things that would stop you from starting a project right now:
On the accounting end, we used to say that non-profits are just businesses with one less line on their balance sheet. This is not strictly true, actually the difference is less -- "owner's equity" becomes "retained earnings". What this means is in practice you have all the accounting, control, auditing, financial and management needs that a for-profit business of your size would have, except for tax preparation in most cases.
For example, if I give you $100K for five cars, you can't book it as income -- it's a liability to me. If I don't get five cars, I've got money coming back from you. You get to call that cash "income" when you ship the cars. If I give you a grant of $100K to save five whales, it works just the same way. I may be able to recognize income in $20K chunks for every whale I save, depending on how the grant was written, but you have to track that liability.
As mentioned above, you have to depreciate equipment. Depreciation is an accounting standard -- it's goverened by tax law, but it isn't there just for taxation purposes.
If anything accounting for a non-profit may be a little more complicated. If you are getting to any kind of size you're going to need a team of specialists - somebody in payables, receivables and a comptroller, posssibly a VP of finance above him or her.
Gnucash may be the personal finance system that makes geeks and accountants smile, but it is not an accounting system.
It'd be great if there were open source accounting systems, but I don't think it will happen unless there is funding from somebody to create one. A real accounting system involves getting lots of extremely small, extremely boring details of accounting custom extremely right and is not most hackers' idea of fun.
I actually know one geek who is a CPA whose idea of fun is getting accounting stuff right; if anybody knows of any funding for developing and OSS accounting package, let me know and I can put you in touch.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Damn, me too. If Microsoft wants to spend its time and money training and giving away surplus hardware and software, by all means, LET it. Better to get free hardware and software of the proprietary kind, rather than get none at all (which is my guess what OSS companies will be able to provide - they're still trying to figure out how to make a profit in the first place). Don't cut off the nose to spite the face.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I'd also like to add that in some cases you'll only want open source tools on the server side. In this way, you don't need to worry about training, since operators will be using any client software they want, but the database will be open source, as would whatever other backend tools they might need (office network, web server, email, etc).
I'd suggest for example, getting the nice hardware and maybe some copies of windows from microsoft, but saving the concerns of tying yourself to a proprietary company's products, by using open source, standards compliant software for the back end of the office.
The result may be an investment rather than a straight success. If you back the use of open source in your application area, you end up debugging it: you're helping that software to mature.
I'd add that there's not much in the way of programming tools that directly address a charity's area (gnucash?), but there's only a few things that would stop you from starting a project right now:
* open source has traditionally been made by and for programmers: you might need a more traditional form of requirements elicitation.
* Documentation may not be good enough for generic IT staff, or volunteer staff. Hopefully this will improve as OSS is more widely adopted outside the hacker community.
* user interfaces may be less user friendly, but you can solve this by separating client from server.
So I'd encourage charities to adopt open source for all their backend software, and to actively initiate projects to create the software they need.
Ale - http://barnton.gcal.ac.uk/
What benefit will be realised by going with open source software in this case? Where will the company save money/time/effort, or otherwise profit from it?
This is a serious question. Not Microsoft doesn't mean Linux/BSD/OSS. There are commercial Unixes out there (Solaris, HP-UX, AIX, SCO), there's BeOS, Mac, and even VMS.
For that matter, why NOT Microsoft??? I wouldn't go with them for most things, but you'd better be prepared to come up with some good reasons to not use the biggest, best-known, most consistently supported product on the planet, or no one will listen to you.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
If memory serves, wasn't FNMA (And other large lenders) having a very public spat with HUD and the FTC because they wouldn't disclose to the gov't exactly how they determined credit scores?
I think the idea was to partner so that MS would donate the software, and FannieMae would donate the extra hardware.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Not really true. I do a bit of consulting on the side (setting up and running networks for SOHOs between about 5-20 users). The really cool thing is if you have someone who knows what they are doing setting up a solid backend with Linux and *BSD is not really that hard and can be made to be almost unbreakable. In a pretty small/static network it does not take alot to admin it. I'm thinking most of the not-for-profits who would benefit most from this type of program could easily find someone willing to donate the couple of hours a week it would take to maintain such a system in particular since most of it could be done with SSH :). Maintaing the front end would not be that much harder if you were able to do it right from the start. I think for the backend there is no choice anyone not using *BSD and/or Linux needs to have the facts explained to them and in many situations it could work just as well on the front end.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Slashdot is a perfect example of how MS isnt a monopoly.
reality check. People like you, spouting OSS zealotry and Linux fanaticism *hurt* the movement, not promote it. People who are deeply invested in MS look at people like you as fringe, or wacko, or *communist*, or just plain unrealistic
You take the definition of monopoly way to strict and literal. Because MS can build products that use proprietary formats/data, they dont publish API's or complete docs, they can bundle products without losing money -- this defines them as monopoly. Because they can force vendors into these bundle/pay deals, they dont follow industry standards/protocols, they can dispatch all attempts at their markets (Netscape, Corel, Apple) this defines them as a monopoly. The fact that you can run other software if you choose dosnt make a market free of monopoly -- the fact that Microsoft can behave in this way and not instantly get told by the marketplace to pi$$ off proves they are a monopoly. If there was a viable competitive marketplace Microsoft would have died when running their business this way. You should really stop to understand what a monopoly is -- M$ dosnt have to be the only Software Company on the planet to be a monopoly...
*Nice choice of words - what do you think you _really_ know about 'communists' or 'communism'? Ill tell you now: Its probably a product of the Cold War, Capitalist Indoctrination, Consumerism and McCarthyism... mostly propaganda from American Business (Government) who were(are) intent on brainwashing the American Public to preserve(further) their Imperialistic goals. It's a little obvious that you've included the major opposing economic theory of the last 150 years with people you also describe as "wacko's, fringe and unrealistic". Communism deserves to be analyzed on its own merit - not treated as the plague based on years of brainwashing. What do you really know about Communism?
If you teach them what a word processor is and the concepts - how to acutally use the application it dosnt matter if its done w/ KOffice, AbiWord or WordPerfect. Teaching users concepts is much better than teaching them an implementation.
Would it be better to teach a young driver how to drive the most popular car if it was different from all other cars just for the sake of being different? In the long term this is a very unhealthy approach - that user will be forever at the whim of the car manufacturer for no other reason than not really understanding how to drive.
What is the difference between using cp *.* ~/ and using explorer to drag-drop to c:\mydocu~1? Simply teaching them how to do the latter has prevented people from understanding WHAT THE HELL they are actually doing.
Basically - M$ products should be avoided like the plague when teaching new users.
As for "gainful employment' - who gives a damn, why does it matter? I thought greater understanding of the universe was the purpose of existance - not making more money.. what is your point here?
And yes, it suprised me to learn that the BMGF would be donating stuff to Canadian libraries. In fact seeing as how useful it will be in giving my Mom net access, it feels kind of strange. I hate BG because his companies software causes me such frustration and wasted time, and yet this happens... Lawyer, nice car, cliff, you know the story.
(ck goes away to do a bit of searching, comes back 10 seconds later)
Hey!, here is the word direct from the horse's mouth! Hmmm, from the numbers there it sounds like $3600 per libarary. Although that reference doesn's say whether they are USD or CDN dollars. I presume USD since it's on the BMFG site, which does translate to just over $5000 CDN.
Ah hah! And there it is right in this release, a "half million dollars worth" of software from Microsoft! With 215 computers that works out to "$2,000 worth of software" from Microsoft, which may mean what, $500-$800 in tax breaks?
As for me, I have no idea. Personally, I don't see why forcing additionaly training on people who consist of volunteers and some full-timers is a good thing in the long run. Considering that M$ has such a large control over the market, why would one want to put a company through the process of training monkeys to use harpoons to get bannans? Dunno, and considering that there is plenty of write-offs for the (under)taxed M$ to have and that FM is a really really really really big group, why not just go ahead and use M$? Don't get me wrong, the heads of M$ are money-grubbing bastards, but I would prefer them to make money off of giving away their OS, a stacked software compilation, training, and other periferial items than I would for them to charge for it.
Finder of the any key.
After all, they're marketing the iMac to all the other Fannie Maes and Ellie Maes and Tammy Fays. They're losing their "catering to the yokels" edge.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
I work at a non-profit organization and they are very resisitant to (what they call) "alternate" operating systems, like the Mac or Linux. I have been begging for both since I got here, and there is a huge resistance to anything that's not Microsoft. (my machine crashes constantly, it's a piece of shit, and they won't replace it, because they suck.) These people consider Wired to be esoteric, so there's a problem, but even our systems people are somewhat. . .well, let me not get fired here. (We run Solaris, not Linux, not BSD, etc.)
"Of course you have to BUY IT! If you don't buy it, it's crap!" There's a misconception for you, eh?
MacOS is a better gui, I really believe that. And better GUIs would be better for librarians, don't you think? So why nothing but Windoze in the building? Um. . .two words.
Gates Grant.
But when I come along and say "hey fellas, I'm designing web pages here. I'm no librarian. can I have an old 486 so I can run the Gimp, and they freak out, well, that deserves a little analysis. It's a problem.
And when they tell me they want me to start dealing with video, I want a 450 g4 dp if I can have it, not the fscking pentium pro they've left me with. Know what'I mean, Vern? But no, because Macs on the Novell network? Horror of horrors!
Any time that somebody is suggesting that non-profit orgs get a little into the open-source/free software movement, I believe they're doing both a favor. But you're right, it's a risky desktop solution for folks who work with charities, non-prof orgs, etc, whose skills may (probably aren't we have to deal with it) at the level that would allow them to really utilize something like X.
That said, why they have to go straight to Microsoft for *all* their solutions is beyond me.
On some level it's that Gates Grant. They look at Microsoft as a big, good benevolent thing. They know the word "technology" which they say alot, and they know "Microsoft" and they use the two interchangeably.
Pretty effective marketing strategy he's got going, that Bill.
_________________________________________________ Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
I can't blame anyone for wanting to be an advocate for Open Source. I too am tired of Microsoft and their high overhead/poorly made software, but there are some realities that we all must face in the business world (ewwwww there is the gross word business, which translates into politics).
Here is the reality. In business companies like to use what everyone knows. This saves on training time, and new hardware expenses (for those programs that require more resources). If you place Linux, BSD, or even BeOS in front of your everyday user, which doesn't include our wonderful world of geekdom, they become like deer caught in headlights. They don't know what to do, or in some cases don't want to waste their time to learn something new when they can just go right to work on a platform with which they are familiar.
On a personal note, we use NT and 98 here at my place of employment. Granted I would much rather use FreeBSD (shameful plug), but the reality is that we have enough problems supporting Microsoft products that it can frustrate Users (that is with a silent L).
a couple notes:
anyway, its nice that these machines (and they get a lot of them!) arent going into landfills, what with the toxicity of all the junk in computers and current (growing) rate of turnover due to obsolescence/envy.
This guy is probably one of the same people that defends Microsoft whenever they do something wrong by saying, "If you don't like what they're doing, don't buy their product!" Then when someone actually tries to avoid buying Microsoft's product (and thereby make an attempt to vote with their dollars, or in this case, recommend that a non-profit organization do so), this guy attacks that idea as well.
Sure, Linux isn't the answer to every problem, but it's up to the organization to decide. If Linux will suit their needs as well as Windows would, then it probably makes more sense to use it instead of Windows. It may even be worth making a small sacrifice or two, just to avoid having problems in the future and to help open source software to grow and mature so that it becomes a better solution over time, whereas Windows will always be quite expensive to maintain.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I'm not real familiar with IRS rulings; I'm more in tune with the Canadian Income Tax Act. There, the accounting for such a "gift" would have to involve:
- Declaring the donation "in kind;"
- Declaring an equal and opposite INCOME .
The net result is that no matter how much the donation was, there had to be a corresponding sale that got treated as a donation.There are still nice opportunities for "benefits" via:
- Giving away something where the costs are minimal to nothing, as with giving away last year's version of something where the boxes, docs, and media got expensed last year and where the alternative was likely to "dumpster" it;
- Getting the "goodwill" from seeming to do something nice;
- Giving away a gift that will keep giving back.
But the point is that "writing off more than the cost of making the contribution" seems unlikely to wash well unless they're actually going to lie to the tax authorities. I expect that the three "secondary benefits" are quite enough to encourage the contributions of software, mind you...As with software where the charity will have to buy a bunch of licenses two years from now, or risk SPA attacks...
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
There's a big difference between "Microsoft is suitable" and "Microsoft is the only option". The poster is just trying to open up alternative, and potentially lower-cost, options.
The only reason that Microsoft products are a "better choice" is due to network effects. People use MS Word because it can read/write other peoples' existing MS Word documents.
Training new users is a form of indoctrination. And you're not just teaching them to conform to the real world environment; you're creating that real world environment, so that the next generation will have even more reason to use Microsoft products regardless of their lack of merit. To think otherwise, is to admit that individual actions do not matter and that no one can make the world a better place. That's too fatalistic and unromantic for Slashdot. ;-)
A good place to break the destructive cycle is at the point where new users are trained.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Sun in particular, seems to want to be the Anit-Microsoft.
They would be interested in training for StarOffice, as well as their commercial offerings.
Another choice to look at would be IBM. They have been doing a lot of work with OSS of late, and might be willing to work with you.
Good luck, however, in any of your choices.
-Colin
--
This message brought to you by Colin Davis
Colin Davis
For running charities, perhaps, but for getting a job? Take a look at the SANS 2000 Salary Survey Summary:
"The average for UNIX folks was $70,080, while the average for Windows folks was $61,233."
Granted, this only applies to SysAdmins (so I probably would agree with you in general), but given the currently high demand for "UNIX folks" (and despite the fact that Linux is not technically UNIX), it seems that training people in Linux is not such a bad idea. Speaking more anecdotally: I was able to get my current job as a UNIX admin because I got so sick of working in retail that I decided to train myself with Linux (plus it was interesting, fun, and free). I know of several other people who have done similar things, and I even have friends involved in hiring that say that Microsoft certifications actually make a resume look worse (one said that he threw away a resume as soon as he saw the letters "MCSE").
I should also add that Linux is an excellent platform on which to learn programming, which opens up yet another career.
Augh...wait a minute; what am I saying? Train no one in Linux! The fewer people there are who know how to use it, the more in-demand those of who do know will be. (Now you know the real reason why people report that Linux is hard to use
With all due respect, I think non-profit groups would prefer having any equipment at all.
.. that she should wait until she can give Duck a l'Orange and Yorkshire Pudding?
They'd probably want equipment and software they are familliar with, since they probably couldn't afford support should their *BSD or *nix knowledge be close to nil, which I imagine it might be.
Isn't this a little akin to advocating a friend not to give KraftDinner and Chicken Noodle soup to a food bank
If something has never been said/seen/heard before, best stop to think about why that is.
"Old man yells at systemd"
This company is a NOT FOR PROFIT organization! why would you partner with a comapny that is going to charge you insane amounts of money for there own personal gain while your company isn't making a dime while trying to help other people.
I used to work for another NFP org. that dealt with Fannie Mae alot. They subscribed to the M$ way of life and in 1999 2 months before Y2k they still had over half of the organization on 486's with win3.1 because they couldn't afford to continue to upgrade.
That is exactly why NFP companys should be embracing linux above all else. It's going to decrease your It budgret by at least 2-300 dollars per computer. Think of the enhancment that would give to the rest of the business.
And don't reply saying there are incompatibilities. this NFP org I'm referring to used a AS400 for all banking/accounting/whatever and used the systems for nothing more that Term sessions, Word Processors and Chart. all of which can be done under linux with as much productivity as they need.
It all depends. Yes, for employment training your argument holds. But there are lots of other kinds of non-profit enterprises that need IT.
I know, I used to be IT director for a medium sized non-profit.
Commercial software creates a number of problems for underfunded non-profits. If you only have a few copies, then you have support and compatability issues with the old software.
If you get enough licenses to cover everyone, then you have to worry about depreciating the gift -- a process that has no financial benefits to the non-profit but is nonetheless required. We once got a in kind grant from Oracle that was going to, on the books, be worth 3/4 of a million. Great this year's statement, but a huge paper expense for several years following. We had to do a lot of creative accounting (and trimming of the gift) to make it work. Of course, this is all smoke and miirors, but it can affect your ability to raise funds. Snooty brahmin donors like charities that look fiscally sound (thus the rich charities get richer).
Then there's downstream upgrading costs. If I'm Microsoft and I give you a million dollars of software but don't let you upgrade free in perpetuity, I'm not being very charitable, am I? For a marginal cost of zero I guarantee a nice future annuity.
So how do you handle this with commercial software if you are a charity?
A fairly common practice in the charity sector is, I believe, to ignore licensing and EULAs and hope MS and SPA doesn't want the bad publiciity (I personally never counted on this -- there is no such thing as bad publicity for the SPA).
Free software eliminates legal risks, financial complications, and licensing hassles.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Sure, you may not like their software/business practices/leader or whatever, but for training people up to be able to use a computer for running charities or getting a job you'd be far better off teaching them how to use Windows/Word/Excel than some open source solution which is more difficult and less well supported.
It's sad to see that despite all the talk of using the right tool for the job when /bots talk about programming languages when it comes to operating systems they want to use open source wishware despite the fact that there are plenty of cases where using a Microsoft solution would be a better choice. Don't let your prejudice make these people's lives more difficult. And since Microsoft already do stuff like this, your case looks even more like open source ego stroking.
When you walk in for one of these jobs they will (hopefully) test your familiarity with the applications they use. Do you know the applications well enough to get the job done with enough efficiency to justify some multiple of minimum wage.
There is no on the job training for word processing or image manipulation etc. You'll get 10 minutes of training on their filing system and thats it.
Chris Kuivenhoven is a thief, beware
In theory, the business isn't really supposed to gain anything from the gift. They're only allowed to deduct the value of the gift. That means you can't give away a clunker automobile and take off the full price when it was new.
But determining the true value of intellectual property like software is impossible to do. All the costs lie in the creation and it costs almost nothing to give away a free copy.
So what amount does Microsoft take off its taxes when it gives away a copy of Windows to a non-profit? I don't know, but it could be larger than its real cost. I talked to a few tax lawyers in producing the book and they said there was no firm guidance from the government in the matter. It was possible that software companies were taking off the full list price for the product.
So, the point is that businesses can generate cash by giving away software to non-profits by writing off more than the cost of making the contribution. I'm not saying that Microsoft or anyone else is doing this, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone is suggesting it to them.
Unfortunately, the open source community loses in this structure. Of course, donations to Stallman's FSF seem to be tax deductable so maybe it all washes out in some strange way.