Slashdot Mirror
Surveys Show Increase In OSS Popularity
segphault writes "Ars Technica takes a look at the results of two different surveys about open source software adoption." From the article: "The survey also addresses the most important question: what motivates organizations to adopt open source software? According to Optaros, cost savings is one of the most significant factors. Optaros says that companies with over US$1 billion annual revenue reported average savings of $3.3 million in 2004 as a result of open source technology, and companies with annual revenue between $50 million and $1 billion reported an average savings of $1.1 million."
studies show that studies about the obvious reveal obvious facts.
I think we can assume that there may be thousands of good reasons for something, but reaching for peoples wallets will convince them much easier. Stopping smoking will make you healthier, driving a beetle instead of an SUV will slow down further global warming, switching to open source will increase security and flexibility.
But Norway reduced the number of smokers by massively increasing tobacco tax, people demand more efficient cars now the oil prices are way up and the main reason for OSS adaption is cost saving.
It's interesting that the article mentions another study by IDC in Europe (instead of one by Optaros and InformationWeek querying American companies) with different results:
But then most European countries signed the Kyoto treaty.memomo: free web based language trainer DE-EN-ES-FR-IT
It's kind of sad people think of "cost savings" as one of the biggest benefits... Freedom to use your software they way you want, the ability to fix things if you need to, the ability to make sure there's nothing hidden in the code that you may not want... These are things that should be topping that list, but I guess for a business where "the bottom line" is the most important thing for you, that's all we can really hope for :/
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Are the survey respondents taking cost of ownership into consideration? I see no mention of it in the article. Of course OSS is cheaper up front; but cost of ownership includes how much it costs to actually use the software. The real bargains are the OSS that is not only free up front, but also a better product than the alternatives (Apache comes to mind).
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
While I believe that open-source products have many long-term benefits for a company (better legacy support, the ability to patch and make alterations as needed, long-term cost savings, etc), companies aren't going to switch immiedately. Why? Because switching costs a lot of money. Let's say I'm a business with 100 computers (desktops). I bought them from Dell and my employees use them. Let's say I want to switch them to Linux. Well, first, I've already paid for Windows (came with the Dells I bought) so I don't get that money back because I'm using Linux now. I also have to retrain workers to use the new systems (yes, those small problems like "Where's the My Documents folder" cost a lot of money for a large organization). So, switching is costing me money rather than saving it. In the long term, I could value the flexibility, free upgrades, etc. that Linux offers and believe that would be more profitable for me in the long run. Of course, on the server side, the situation is easier since if I'm going to be paying a server admin anyway I can hire a UNIX admin and you can buy UNIX servers without paying a Windows tax, but if I'm currently using Windows Server, it can be hard to justify switching. It's always hard to surplant an installed base. Open source will get there, but there is no panacia of cost savings or ease in the short term. I believe that those benefits will be there in the long term, but it can often be hard for companies to look past the end of their nose.
Freedom to use your software they way you want, the ability to fix things if you need to, the ability to make sure there's nothing hidden in the code that you may not want... These are things that should be topping that list
/.ers, but really, the general public cares about (in no order):
That's what counts to you, and to a lot of us
1) How much does it cost?
2) Does it do what I need?
3) Is it easy?
4) If it breaks, will someone fix it for me?
European companies seem to value the flexibility of open source solutions, while American companies value the savings.
In other news, most European corporate executives plan to be working for the same company in twenty years, when the largest benefits of OSS make a difference.
American business is about making money now and getting out with the cash before it all falls apart. Thus, American executives don't care about long-term savings and strategic benefits.
the savings are more or less the same, therefore companies with less budget have a greater percentage in savings.
In other words:
People with less money have more reasons to go open source.
So if I did my super swell math correctly 3.3 Million to 1 Billon is .33%
Not what I would call a great savings. That is just a drop in the bucket for these companies, they probably spend more on office supplies.
Unfortunately, "free" carries a negative connotation in the business world: worthless.
The smart thing to do is charge a f*sking fortune for something that is free. Make it a status symbol/exclusive/BS. The well-known red hat and IBM are perfect examples.
Sounds crazy, but it's true. As you understand Linux is an **unbelievable** value for the SMB. Lack of cheap MCSA's makes "free" sound like a whole lot of trouble.
Related story: I've got the small company I work for running linux for some things. My boss (Not a PHB) *still* does not want to convert the Windows file server that requires way more baby sitting than the busier linux box. It's only a file server for gosh sake!
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
>sudo su
What's wrong with just su?
Were that I say, pancakes?
TCO also includes
Yep, it's important to look at the whole picture.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
I for one can't understand why the software industry is basically the ONLY ONE giving away the result of its work and talent.
It isn't. You just wrote an opinion and gave it away. Think of all those poor starving opinion writers for newspapers and magazines. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.
To summarise the summary of the summary: people are a problem. ~ h2g2
(bad spelling.../. should warn for spelling error)
For two reasons:
1) "propietary" is spelt "proprietary"
2) "Inerty" isn't a word, I believe you mean "inertia"
Cost savings means MORE profit!!! That simple. A friend of mine has a mid sized company in Seattle and switched to OSS and the savings made his profit much larger (accounting looked great) and he then sold the company to a competitor for a huge gain.
Come on, cost savings means the money goes to the owners (shareholders) pockets and not Microsoft, Apple or any other propreitary system.
Also it saves paying the tech guys for stupid certs like the MCSE etc.... which mean nothing but more wages...It drives labor costs down as well which is why big corporations and governments like it.
What gets me is point #4. The software arena is littered with orhaned software. The best way to insure you have an unsupported application is to buy a proprietary closed source software package. Oracle, MS, SAP, Peoplesoft all force you to either to upgrade or lose support. Companies get bought out by rivals and product lines get slashed. Companies go out of business and their clients have no access to the source. That is a huge risk. I think more user education/manager education is needed as to the risks of proprietary closed source software.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Not really. When Windows took over the desktop, it took them some odd 15 years. And they were not competing against a monopoly in that space. So, if Linux takes 15 years going against a company like MS, then it is a very impressive situation. I am also guessing that OSS will accelerate in the take over over the next 3 years.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... morphs Ada code into C.
Not the first time I hear this crap.
Damm where does this FUD come from. All base gcc front ends - that is (in alphabetical order) Ada, C, C++, Fortran, Java and Objective-C are standart compiler systems - compiling directly into object code. No intermediate C at all.
Martin