Stokey asks:
"I work for a global finance firm, (60000+ employees and presence in 25+ countries) in the Group IT department. Pressure is building from the businesses to cut costs and Open Source software has been pushed onto the discussion table. I am trying to educate IT Directors where I can with correct definitions, breaking down assumptions, and will most likely end up writing the group wide Open Source policy. The challenges are well known: risk, cost, support, licensing, benefits, training, and so forth. I am looking for help in putting together a pack that can be handed to our IT Directors forum which contains a policy, TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) reviews, and risk reviews by companies that have done it. After asking what Gartner has to say, the next question will be 'So who else has done this?'. Can Slashdot assist?" What information do you think should be included to sell Open Source to management at the top-level of any corporation or business?
I'm sure several of you have run into this situation before, so I figure this may be as good of a place as any to suggest what information might be appropriate to place in such a policy, especially for future IT workers who find themselves in this position. If people are serious in getting Open Source further into the enterprise than it has already is, such information will be necessary to convince the powers-that-be on the things that we already know: Open Source can be as good as, or better than, commercial software for business tasks. Things like licensing descriptions, common misconceptions, and what Open Source really is would be an absolute must. What other information do you think would be absolutely necessary to include into such policy?
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you ask an extremely knowledgeable professional or two if you work for such a money-rich company?!?! You're asking a bunch of /.'ers how we've dealt with structuring a Fortune 500's OSS strategy??? You're either crazy, or just plain stupid. You're going to get hundreds of disparate answers from this crowd. If you're hoping to save some money, why don't you first spend some to make a lot more? (in cost savings)
Better yet, do your own research to find this stuff out! These 'Ask Slashdot' questions sometimes truly amaze me. The poster of this 'Ask Slashdot' probably makes 2-3 times what I make (if not 10x-20x in stock options alone) and yet he's willing to listen to my poorly informed ideas on such an important matter?! Truly hilarious!
Consider the cost of 60,000 Windows workstations vs. 60,000 Linux or FreeBSD workstations. Do some calculations based upon the Windows licensing scheme vs. "free." The differences will undoubtedly be astronomical.
You forget that for 60,000 installations Microsoft will dump down the price to make it worthwhile. Do you think such clients pay $100 for each copy of Office and another $200 for every installation of Windows? Think again.
The problem with the financial argument is that, at least till recently, Unix specialists have been in more demand than MS specialists (owing to the devaluation of MS specialists due to excessive MCSE programs) and thus command higher pay. This increases the by far largest amount of any IT budget, namely staff expenses, which outweighs any savings done on licensing or mitigated risk of service outages.
Of course, if the cheapest way to run things would necessarily be the best, then it would make sense to ship your IT staff to India. I think many people on Slashdot would have powerful opinions on the sensibility of that strategy.
Any open source OS will still come out way ahead, even with the cost of switching.
Got any math to back that up? I'm not trolling, I'd just like to see some numbers to back up these claims.