Penguin Not Taking Flight Down Under

Bill Bennett writes "New Zealand Reseller News reports that Linux adoption down under is three times lower than North America. From the article: 'Adoption of open source software is slow in the Australasian region according to a report from analyst firm Forrester. Only 18% of the businesses in Australia and New Zealand surveyed for the report were using Linux, while 11% were considering its use. Analyst Sam Higgins says the low rate - three times lower than North America - is because open source is caught between two worlds. He says customers have been conditioned to buy software from vendors and their approved partners.'"

Comments

Needs to be said

[TubeSteak]

OSS != Linux
Linux is a subset of OSS

The article pretty much uses OSS & Linux interchangeably, which isn't the case.

Anyways, with that in mind, what exactly does the author mean by "Trojan Horse"?

The report shows that 50% of organisations using open source software are paying for support and cite that as one of the main challenges for implementation.

Higgins says some software developers use open source as a professional services Trojan horse.

Re:Needs to be said

[woods]

The implication is that some software developers and consultants convince a company to use open source by citing its low/no initial cost, and not being forthright about the ability of the client to actually run the software themselves without assistance.

The software then provides a constant revenue stream to the developer/consultant in the form of support, which the customer only realizes once they've already welcomed the software into their organization.

Sounds like it's 3x more than NA, not 3x less....

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 50% of companies in North America are using Linux? Does this count companies that have someone who checks Slashdot once a day as 'using Linux?' Can anyone substantiate this rather surprising claim?

Three times lower?

[Anakron]

North America's adoption rate is three times higher than 11-18%?
33-54%??
Really?
If that's true, that's pretty good!
Can somebody confirm?

Re:Three times lower?

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing as the AOL commercial where they state that spyware
causes your computer to be up to 500% slower.

Someone didn't take a math class at some point, you
cannot be more than 100% slower, it would not be moving.

I beleive your assumption is correct, they did it in the forward
direction, then said "1/3 of the speed doesn't sound fancy and
people are scared by fractions, therefore I'm pretty sure I can
flip that upside down and compare the other way around"

Which generally doesn't work.

Re:Three times lower?

[wagadog]

Smaller operations in the US use Linux -- and nearly all of the schools in NZ outside of U. Auckland use MS almost exclusively. And Auckland primarily only uses it for servers and in EE/CS. Then NZ government runs its day-to-day operations almost exclusively on MS, and even putting through a white paper saying "maybe open source should be considered" nearly got one minister let go.

Having lived and worked in NZ for 7 years, I can say for a fact that there are three or four issues contributing to the lack of uptake of Linux in New Zealand.

1. Brain drain. They started charging like a wounded bull for university education, and charging 8% interest on student loans, with the interest accruing immediately. Very easy credit terms otherwise -- you just have to be in school, you don't have to prove that your parents are poor. However, all those parents had planned their financial lives around the premise of a free University education for their children, so they typically have nothing saved up, and the kids can get loans and loans and loans and more loans to go to school so they do. So the first thing people do when they graduate (particularly with professional degrees) is go overseas (3 pounds sterling to the "NZ rupee", nearly two US dollars to the "NZ rubel"), preferably to the UK where they can live for a couple years (before age 28) without having to hassle with immigration -- it's a commonwealth thing. So they work for a couple years overseas, to pay off their debts, and then, having established a professional life in the UK (and with the lure of being able to work anywhere in the EU upon getting a Brit spouse or work permit) are in a perfect position to now handle their immigration issues. They rarely return. Net result -- stupid kiwis. They love it when Microsoft tells them what to do, because there's nobody left in the country able to exercise their own critical faculties -- all those people left the country years ago. You think the dregs remaining can figure out how to run Linux? Nada. Nada chance. A few do -- and eventually also give up on the small-minded priggish twits they have to deal with day-to-day there, and leave the country.
2. Small country With only 4 mil people (ish) its much easier for MS to invade all of the professional networks and actively harm anyone who advocates Linux use at any level--and because the NZ dollar is (traditionally) so low, people are pretty easy to buy off with freebies. Think of how easy it would be for MS to suppress Linux in, say, Rhode Island -- if they knew they were going to get to claim a whole country. Using whispering campaigns, character assassination -- someone actually told me that "Linux is Illegal, you know."
3. Tall Poppy Syndrome This is a far more subtle, but possibly the overriding factor. With the brain drain going on, you've got mostly short stubby little dandelions at best in NZ, and even being an average poppy, you're going to stand out. Wrong move. The last thing you want to be is different or -- goddess forbid -- more highly qualified -- than anybody else. Using Linux = Being a Smartarse, end of story. Why can't you be like everybody else.
4. Corruption . NZ has a reputation of being one of the least corrupt countries in the world. That's because they don't call them bribes and kickbacks. They're "backhanders." How much does it cost to buy off a small-time manager? A small discount on their MS licenses. A boozy lunch. A couple tee-shirts. Anything to justify MS and to avoid having the support of a tall poppy linux geek.

All I can say is, beautiful country -- shame about the people.

'Ay, Digger!

[Philip K Dickhead]

Maybe sh**ty download links from Bigpond Telestra - during the peak open source adoption phase - had something to do with it?

Try and download an ISO without local mirrors in Sydney?

Re:'Ay, Digger!

[IdLinkAnOinkInvitePl]

Don't estimate our crappy bandwidth's effect on this situation. Until recently former Government monopoly, now just privately owned, Governmentally enforced monopoly, Telcom NZ, insisted 128Kb/s was a broadband service. Try downloading fedora at 128K!

Re:'Ay, Digger!

[jibjibjib]

In Australia, anything that's not dial-up is called "broadband". Even 128kbps.

Re:bad survey?

[oc-beta]

Well, using statistics, those companies do not have to be surveyed to be represented in the overall statistics. How many people watch the Super Bowl? I have never been asked if I did, yet they know. The wonder of Standard Deviations and Representative samples!

How about internet connections/speeds?

[phorm]

When I was in Australia a few years ago, I found that internet penetration simply wasn't as good as Canada. Sure, the major cities were well connected, but many of the smaller ones suffered from absolute shitty service, connectios, availability, prices, or any combination thereof. Even in the cities the prices weren't all that great. Hell, dialing a local number by landline still costs per call (which really sucks for dialup especially when crappy connection=random disconnects).

Open-soure in my mind often tends to depend a lot on a decent connection to the 'net. Downloading CD ISO images, installing packages/updates from apt/etc, downloading packages or source files, reading online documentation, etc.

It could be that "down under" is simply being hindered by a case of lacking resources, mainly comparatively crappy internet service.

The Aussie mindset (and conditioning)

[Meetch]

Explanation by example:

A guy I used to know developed a product in Australia, and could not sell the product or the business to anyone.

So he moved his family and business to America. Some 3 years later the product was being sold by his American company to Australians, amongst others, and his business was purchased by one of the bigger companies for $US 20 million.

Then he and his family moved back to Australia.

It seems for some stupid reason that Australian businesses want to buy products from overseas companies, America being a popular choice. It also seems that obviously they don't want "free" stuff, because there's "no such thing as a free lunch" down-under. As a culture, we are wary of gotchas, too much for our own good. I believe it to be nothing more than an over-cautious approach to new things without obviously proven major backing.

I'm interested in hearing other peoples' takes on this...

Re:The Aussie mindset (and conditioning)

[richlv]

most countries have these complexes. this is not restricted to software - we have clothes and furniture manufactured in latvia, then sent to other countries where it is re-labeled, re-imported and sold for ten times the original price. and there is a market for this.

now, opensource software has allowed a couple of software projects to raise their heads locally (www.zabbix.com, for example) and even companies have lately been more and more positive towards local software (this also has something to do with abroad companies screwing locals over and over...).

maybe oss could push the mindset in other direction, thus resulting in less expenses and better lide for everybody ? :)
(except re-labelels ;) )

Re:Choice...

[kumachan]

No, people still buy McDonalds

2 main reasons.

[marcushnk]

I work for a largish reseller/supplier/hosting and support services IT
company in Australia.
The slow roll out of Linux in Australia I believe is directly
attributable to two things:
1) IT staff are not trained to support this "new" beast in the market,
and if not trained can not offer support.
2) the sales guys all think it's a load of "hippie love" and can't
understand how there can be any money made from it. Those that do
understand are very few and far between, but don't care anyway because
the proprietary software sellers are offering larger bonus's for
selling their gear.

Re:18 %?

[Gallech]

I could be wrong, but I believe what we are talking about here is "companies that have at least one Linux box", not "companies that are deploying Linux exclusively".

I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that 50% or more of North American companies are using Linux in some capacity, and plan to continue to add Linux servers in the future. Medium and large companies especially have lots of smallish projects where a LAMP solution (for example) is a perfect fit: setting aside for the moment companies that find good fits for Linux in support of large applications.

As for Australia not following this trend...hey, every company or individual has that choice. I'm not an evangelist: I'm of the mind that you use the right tool for the job- Linux, Windows, OS X, VM, OS/390: whatever. And sometimes, due to skillset, previous investments, or what have you, some companies make a good case for using some platforms that might not make complete sense to me.

Another way of looking at it: its an untapped market for future growth!

Re:Choice...

[dotgain]

A better analogy would be that people still (like me, unfortunately) smoke.

The badness that is McDonalds is not as widely accepted and believed, even if it is just as cancerous and pushed at the kids through advertising and sports sponsorship.

Needs to be tested.

[jd]

I'm not convinced. We've seen similar remarks from the Gartner Group for the US, despite all evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, it is still common enough practice in large companies for admins to install something stable (like Linux, a *BSD, or whatever) in place of a Windows server, but not to tell their bosses. So long as nothing goes wrong, everyone's happy - the system will crash less often and handle more users, so CEOs and the like are not going to make any enquiries as to what is being used.

For all we know, 100% of all companies in Australia and New Zealand are using Linux and/or a *BSD for their web server, mail server, ftp server, print server(s), DNS/DHCP server, etc. The only ones of those you can test are the ones with a public interface, and I'll bet you anything you like that these market researchers don't have a copy of nmap handy, even to test those.

It is very hard to determine actual uptake of Linux, until it reaches a critical threshold of acceptability in a region, because it is so easy for it to stay under the radar.

For smaller companies, the bosses may well know about Linux installs but not want to admit to them, fearing looking bad or being perceived as cheap. Again, that's not going to change until Linux is deened acceptable enough. No sane boss is ever going to say something that puts their end-of-year bonus at risk.

Finally, on the results aspect, it also depends on how the question was asked. It is easy for studies to ask questions in a way that forces the response. If you answer a particular way three times in a row, you're likely to answer the same way on the fourth question without thinking about it. Studies are extremely difficult to do well. This is especially significant when someone with a vested interest in a result pays for the study, as it is (by the nature of the beast) extremely easy to ensure the results match what the sponsor wants to see.

(I don't believe a single study on the dangers of smoking, sponsored by a tobacco company, ever established even the remotest possibility of there being a connection between product and result. I've even seen surveys showing sugar isn't a factor in tooth decay... sponsored by sugar companies.)

The bit about trojan horses is indicative that there's something more to this than meets the eye. The implication is that people have been "gifting" companies with Open Source, only to slam them with high service charges, perhaps for maintenance or administration. (eg: a company might provide Linux servers and not pass on the license fee, but charge double for all technical support calls.) Either that OR the reader is supposed to believe that is the case.

The "trojan horse" is really just a play on Microsoft's "Total Cost of Ownership" attack on Linux, where Redmond accused the Penguin of being more expensive when all costs were factored in over time. I can't see Microsoft themselves going after a market that they'd barely notice even if it did switch overnight, but I'd be willing to bet that those sponsoring and/or running this study have read Microsoft's claims and phrased questions accordingly.

Sadly, I know of no country where manipulating market research constitutes conspiring to defraud. If anything, most countries seem to encourage deceptive use of market research to the point where it is simply not possible to trust any results that are produced, even though it is hazardous (in that you're not listening to the user's requirements) to not have such information. However, because it is statistical, such studies can always produce results anywhere in the distribution function, including the extreme tail end. The sample size is generally very small and the confidence limits are usually not stated, so there is nothing anyone can do to really fight the claims. All that can be done is to find a group with greater influence and get them to falsify - err, produce - a counter-claim.

Either that, or conduct a real, in-depth, self-vali

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[PitaBred]

High school? Doesn't this happen in like, every high school, not just NZ? The secondary school IT administration all over is far from top-notch. They're the guys with diplomas but no degrees who just happened to know someone with pull in the school system who knew they liked computers.
Sorry if this offends anyone. It's just from my experiences, and by no means is it a hard and fast rule.