Slashdot Mirror
Charity Shuns Open Source Code
brown-eyed slug writes, "The BBC has an article explaining Christian Aid's decision to use Microsoft software in preference to Linux. It re-opens the classic debate about the total cost of ownership, highlighting the wider availability of Microsoft skills, as well as the beneficial pricing policy of the Seattle giant. From the article: '...one of the things that we find is that Microsoft is viewed as the big, bad organization — but they've actually got some good corporate social responsibility. If you're a charity or an educational institution, you pay pence in the pound for the license, compared to what a major bank might pay.'" While the Christian Aid spokesman makes some good points, he seems to miss totally the idea of open code — confusing code with data.
Look guys (and gals), I work in a mostly Linux shop. It is the only solution for our server farms. The cost of mainenance is high for two reasons: 1. We have to hire both linux and windows IT people. Linux is next to worthless on our desktops and 2. Every time a new version or upgrad comes out (new hardware isn't supported by older versions) too many things become broken requiring troublshooting and fixing the software (a lot of software including purchased licenses). This is aggravating to say the least.
As for commercial applications, Windows is far cheaper to maintain and support and, for a non-profit, considerably cheaper.
Linux zeolots have no concept of reality.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I think it makes perfect sense. Look at the ideology:
a) They like having a big powerful authoritarian figure they can look up to.
b) They don't let facts or reality get in the way of their beliefs. They'll happily eat the information that their "authority" will give them.
Basically, FOSS didn't stand a chance.