Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Making Inroads in Small Businesses
prostoalex writes "In a story mainly about new OpenOffice release, NewsFactor Network quotes an interesting finding of Jupiter Research analyst: "Open-source productivity suites did "surprisingly well" in the mid-size business market, with the OpenOffice suite alone claiming a share of about 6%. Furthermore, [Joe Wilcox] found that some 19% of small businesses ran Linux on their desktop, and a whopping 26% ran Linux on their servers.""
And those pockets are in small and mid-size businesses -- those of 1,000 employees or less -- where paying top dollar for Microsoft's very expensive productivity suite does not make much sense. In conducting research for a new report, Wilcox found that open-source productivity suites did "surprisingly well" in the mid-size business market, with the OpenOffice suite alone claiming a share of about 6 percent. Furthermore, he found that some 19 percent of small businesses ran Linux on their desktop, and a whopping 26 percent ran Linux on their servers.
I want to know some more detail... What state? What area of business? 26% server share, sure, believeable, 6% OO share, eh, not too believeable, but I will go with it based on the fact that they have shown no data to back up this claim... 19% on the desktop? Uh, no way, that's just too unbelievable for me.
I love Linux and I think it has great potentional but I think this "research" is just as skewed as anything that is funded by MS...
Small to mid-size business move faster than big business. When the smaller ones are more competitive and saving cash the larger businesses will have to follow suit to remain competitive.
Trolling is a art,
If only schools could switch to OpenOffice to, and we could probably get rid of the MS Office dominance for ever in a few years...
As we may remember from a recent interview with James Gosling, he made the statement,
"There's no way that I could pay nearly $4,000 for a freaking word processor at home. It just isn't going to happen."
If the home user cannot justify purchasing an expensive office suite, it is no surprise that the small business will try to avoid it as well. Initiatives such as OpenOffice really help to push these boundaries, making Open Source software appealing to business, and to the end user.
I personally use Abiword and OpenOffice in my day to day word processing, and I prefer it much to the expensive Microsoft Office suite.
It would not be too hard to verify Open Office.org's market share by experiment. All we need to do is start sending out .sxw and .sxc attachments. If we get e-mails asking what programme opens them, we tell them Open Office {though I'd expect MS Office to be able to open them just fine; after all, the Open Office.org file formats are public knowledge, whereas the MS office file formats are closely-guarded secrets}.
Also, it might give some people a dose of their own medicine.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
We're a small business, and we run open source on our server and a few desktops. We'll be moving to more in the future.
You can just imagine the look on my boss's face when he asked how much he had to pay for my software and upgrades.
Basically, we use open source because this company lives month to month. We make plenty of money, but there's not enough to throw around on wild expenses. Also, the only excuse for not using open source is not having any employees smart enough to handle it. The MS philosophy is to make computers dumbed down to the level of the dumbest user. And that's why a lot of businesses use windows. But in a sense, if you have open source knowledge and background, then the sum of all open source software is like a benefit you bring to the company once they hire you. Because you have free or cheap access to a program to do just about everything on just about any hardware. What could be better for a small business? This had a large role in my employment.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
I'm in the IT department of a small company.. ~70 hosts and ~8 servers. The need arose a while ago to have a seperate database offloading data from the MS SQL server for reporting purposes. I installed linux on a redundant P3 lying around and set things up because I didnt want to hit the management with a bill for some fancy UNIX solution, and I'm just used to linux.
So now theres the need to use a better VPN solution than the one that comes with win2k, and to replace the MS proxy server. Will I hit them with a bill for the cobalt raq server, an RS/6000 or a used Pentium3 with Linux/FreeBSD? I've no beef with FreeBSD, but I had to install something on the RedHat that doesnt install on FreeBSD.
So Linux is eventual. Everyone will have a need for a utility server and not want to pay for it... and the techie who suggests it will be preferred, for saving the small business some money, natural selection of OSes comes with it.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I visit tons of small businesses, and this guys telling me 1 in 4 are running linux somewhere?
.com startups or what? Sounds like a dataset skewed towards tech-oriented businesses.
And what exactly does he call a small business? Are these
I mean, your local mom and pop dry cleaner or deli stand doesn't usually have a server farm in the closet or care how many megaflips per flop the electrowizzer can do.
When I think small business and computers, I think of a cheap dell in the corner running QuickBooks..
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
-A
About five years ago, I set up a linux server at my godfather's business, and it's been running like a tank since then. It replaced an NT machine that required constant fixing and administration on his end. Since he's not the most savvy user, this was a constant source of complaint for him.
The linux machine grew with his business, and was only recently replaced (due to a motherboard failure). When I asked him what kind of OS he wanted on the new server, the choice was clear: Linux. Since it requires so little maintenance (none from him and only remote administration from me) he's been one of the most vocal Linux advocates in the small business community, and had several business in our area come in to see how well Linux works with their existing technologies.
Did we have trouble? Yeah... ACT didn't like to be on a SAMBA share (until I found out it needed oplock tweaking), and getting tech support from his ISP was troublesome, but once everything was set up, there was nothing more to do.
Small businesses often can't afford to have a full time IT person, so this kind of set it and forget it proposition makes great business sense.
"This is not a company that appears to be bothered by ethical boundaries."
Attorney General Mike Hatch on Microsoft
I think Microsoft is finally starting to succeed in eliminating the 'casual' software pirating. Sure, there are the larger corporate versions that don't have the activation feature - but most of the smaller companies (less than 25 people) won't have that type of license. A few years back, you could buy a dell and take the copy of office 97 and stick it on every desktop - not legal, but easily to do. Now that is just not the case as today's software loves to finger print your hardware to prevent this from happening.
So why the increase in OSS? I suspect a big chunk comes from folks who look at the CAL's, email, file, or print servers - all the things in addition to an office suite - and have to decide if they really want to pony up for it. A personal example: a friend was looking to get a copy of office to update their resume, among other things. With the product activation, they could not install my copy of Word. Best case, they could buy a student edition for $130 (and sign up for classes) or plunk down $200 for a normal version. I explained what the activation did, pointed them to some on-line vendors I trust, and then gave them the link to Open Office to use while they thought about what to do.
Office is just peanuts, IMHO. The back office pieces are the spendy bits, and that is where a lot of the OSS software shines. Even for something as basic as a web server for the public, is it really worth two grand for IIS? Some folks might say yes, others might go Apache...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
My wife runs a small business (40 employees) and I do the computing stuff (in my leisure time, basically). So I have some experience in SMB and Linux.
5 years ago I introduced Linux file + print servers, routers, and firewalls. Since I was a newbie in the beginning I had a steep learning curve to climb up. After that, everything was perfect. No problems with the 4 Linux and 1 FreeBSD servers, but there still is a NT machine, because some software the company (fashion business) needs runs only on windows. The maintenance costs for this machine are 10 times higher than the 5 other servers combined. I would be glad to get rid of it, but software we need is simply not avaliable in Linux. This is a big obstacle towards an MSfree life.
Then, the desktops. All these Win machines on the desktops require far too much attention. Many of them are > 5 years old and need to be replaced. So this is a good time to migrate towards OSS. So I gave a KDE desktop machine a try --> endless hassle with MS office formats, OpenOffice crawls, users dislike it because it's not Windows, 1 GHz + 256 MB RAM needed etc etc. My conclusion is that it is not the MS desktops which are the problem. Maybe some might be better off with Linux desktops but I think the gain will never be more than 10%, if at all.
The real problem is that there is an overly complex machine at every desk capable of gazillion CPU cycles per sec and able to process GB of data, for what? Writing an invoice (3 kB data) or booking something into an accounting system (234 bytes data). That's what 80% of all workplaces are like. For these 80%, all these diskussions about which desktop is the best are regularly missing the point. That's why I will give thin clients a try. So my idea is: big server machine for those 80 %, old PCs as thin clients, typical desktop with 4 buttons: e-mail, web, write_a_letter, modify_database; Linux or MACs for the remaining 20% (mostly designers). This will take a long time to set up, because there are no off-the-shelf solutions. So the 2nd big obstacle is: there are no experts available to help SMBs. My wife's company would still be locked in Windows if I were not around. Businesses of this size cannot afford a full-time sysadmin. If Joe Fashion or Jill Plumber needs a network for their 5 employees business, they will always end up with MS, provided by the local we-sell-computers shop.
For SMBs, the break even for OSS is still far, far away.
I think the freedom to "just do it" is as significant a factor as the free price and the freedom to modify the code. The ability to download open source software, install it on an old, redundant computer, and play around with it without having to ask anyone for permission or money is a huge factor. Even if the techie knows that his boss will probably approve the money, it is still a hassle. The boss might say "no", the boss might not be around, the boss might use the discussion to bring up other, unpleasant things, such as WTF those clueless users in Marketing are demanding right now.
Of course, this "freedom from hassles" is also why people use the software that is installed by default on the computers they buy instead of going through the hassles of downloading OSS. It does cut both ways. This changes when it is time to upgrade the system, and then the hassle factor comes back in. If you can upgrade that Win98 box to Linux without having to get permission, then even if the TCO is higher for OSS, it will still get done.
SPF support for most open source mail servers can be found at libspf2.