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.
"that can actually cost more than having Windows on an enterprise machine" ... guy: it's when you have more than one machine that the benefits of free software get obvious. When you have more than a dozen, they're stunning.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
the whole charity thing is really pretty much irrelevant. sure, charities get big breaks on software and hardware. at the same time they often have much smaller budgets for things like i.t. (and hopefully they are careful not to waste donation money) so really the question is the same question for business - which ultimately costs more? and you can go out and find studies and anecdotal evidence all day and just about all of it is tainted in some way. the study was payed for by some big company or the anecdotal evidence is coming from someone with an agenda to push.
i work for a very large non-profit. we get huge breaks and we still spend a lot (to me anyway) because there is some stuff we do that justifies the cost. when we can - and when the tool best fits, we use open source. just like a big for-profit company should do. a person who writes off open source completely without analyzing each situation is really just hurting themselves. often OSS might not work, but when it does it can really be a great cost saver. especially if you can train volunteers or existing staff.
is OSS free as in beer completely? no - of course not. does it cost more than a closed source solution? it really depends on so many variables that change from situation to situation that there is no way to make a blanket statement.
my organization just got oracle to give us a huge break on some stuff. it was a huge deal to get them to do it. they had to be sure that it wouldn't violate some of their contracts with the government. (by giving someone else lower prices or something-- i'm not involved at a level to know the details) it went through, we saved an insane amount compared to the 'list price' but it was still expensive. and getting skilled people is not a walk in the park. but we think it is the tool that will best meet our needs in a specific area. we also use linux (server and some desktops), we use some OSS project management tools, we use a ton of stuff all over the place that is open source. and we use windows. but i don't see the windows stuff as saving us a ton of money. shoot, we had a virus problem the other week that caused a lot of issues. i think part of that was because we run a.v. that isn't the greatest - but it was cheaper (not in the long i don't think, but that's not my area). on my aix and linux servers-- i don't have to pay for or worry about a.v. and they don't even address the cost of compliance management.
so there you have it -- on charities pro-oss story to balance out anothers con-oss story.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
"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"
Suuuure.. as if major customers don't get huge volume discounts and other incentives to remain MS shops. The people who end up having to pay full price are the home and small business types who can't get volume discounts- they are the ones that get raked over the coals. It is from screwing the endless little customers over that MS gets fat and rich, then gives back a tiny percentage to charity to get all the glory for having "social responsibility".
Like most people, they don't care about open source code, because they don't code.
It's not like people are going to suddenly develop a love of programming en masse. The ability to modify the operating system, or anything else for that matter, is about as important to most people as the color of the motherboard.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
Does anyone find the fact that a charity supporting the community is giving money to a monopoly, directly impacting the community? Yes, they pay pennies on the dollar, but what about the rest of us, who theoretically will pay more because of their discount?
The article quotes the charity as saying: So its easier and less expensive for them to find both volunteers and employees who already know how to use MS software as opposed to having to go through the time and expense of training them anew on something different. That is a valid concern if they are trying to operate on a shoe-string budget. The noted that the licensing cost for the charity is "pay pence in the pound for the licence" (i.e. cents on the dollar). So the training and support become major expenses.
Microsofts beneficial pricing policy? How about Linux'snonexistent pricing policy?
It re-opens the classic debate about the total cost of ownership
I must have missed something: when was this debate closed?
I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
Shun oss in favor of MegaEvilCorp. Check.
I guess this explains the torrent of negative and condescending comments. Is there anything these people could have done more wrong in the eyes of the slashdot collective? Maybe sued RMS in a Rev. Phelps styled lawsuit?
At my university the bookstore sells XP Pro for $10. You can download Office Pro off of the website for free.
Do you think MS is doing that to support higher education? I doubt it. I'm more certain that they see it as a cheap way of indoctrinating people to use MS products so that when they get out of college they are so used to using MS, that they don't even stop to think of anything else existing.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Remember, it is in Microsoft's long term interest to prevent people from moving to Linux.
So, for a charity, Microsoft could give their software away (free as in beer) and still come out ahead because it would be another instance where Linux was denied.
This gets back to the "piracy" argument. "Piracy" helps your company if it gets people who would not normally purchase your product to use (and learn) your product rather than use (and learn) a competitor's product.
There's no loss on sales because they wouldn't have been able to afford the purchase price in the first place.
I've often wondered why companies don't just give away licenses for their product that are 2 generations old or older. Get the people hooked on the free stuff and then they'll pay you when they get money. Just like the drugs.
Funny how the open source movement is about choice until you decide not to use them. For example, any article on here that mentions Photoshop, without fail there's always someone who stands up and says, "stop Adobe's monopoly! Use Gimp!" This sort of myopic zealotry is childish at best. People aren't always going to use what you think is best. They may have different requirements than you. Heck, they may just want to get stuff done without dragging ridiculous debates on software distribution into everything.
This was just a choice the charity made. Perhaps it isn't what this crowd wants to hear. Instead of complaining about it, figure out what made them be dissuaded, and evaluate whether their complaints are legitimate. If they are, then fix the underlying problem. If they aren't, then disregard it and move on. You don't need to sit there and whine endlessly about it.
I don't really care how much money private businesses pump into Microsoft for software but I'd really like to think that any government department that's financed by my taxes or any charity are doing their utmost to cut costs on any sort of infrastructure spending when cheaper ot free alternatives are available.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
No disrespect to the guy, but I don't think he understands what OpenSource actually means.
In fact, I get the impression that he hasn't really considered using OpenSource software.
To be fair, if you are already busy trying to maintain the systems that you already have, then experimenting with OpenSource alternatives can seem a lot more hassle than it is worth. ... should I think about replacing all of my existing (working) services with a completely new set of (unknown) services".
How often does an IT manager sit down and think "Ok, looks like I have some spare time
Unless there is a policy change from higher up, then the only way that change will happen is if enough techies within the department discover OpenSource for themselves and begin to suggest alternatives.
After reading the article, it sounds more likely to me that they received their preconceived ideas about Linux after talking to their Microsoft sales rep. Which is not to say they are all wrong, but it doesn't sound like they've actually done any of their own research on the topic of switching their OS. However, their core point seems to be that they already have a system that works, and Microsoft is already giving them a big break on the cost of the software because they are a charity. So staying with Microsoft is a known cost, and switching over their IT infrastructure and trying to make certain everything still works would be an unknown cost, with no guarantees it would ultimately be less expensive than what they currently have.
A steaming cup of soykaf would be real wiz right now.
I must agree with them on the topic of knowledge base. There ARE more M$
trained people available than for Linux. They may have an easier time getting
support and they probably won't have to train anybody using the computers.
(What software is running on the computers in your kid's school?)
They are wrong about security, open source does not mean their computers
are open to attack (wonder who put THAT idea in their heads?)
I can't really see the problem. If Microsoft subsidizes charities at the cost of commercial customers then the charities have everything to gain by going Microsoft. It doesn't say anything relevant about the TCO of Linux versus Windows in the commercial sector.
I think the comment about confusing code with data is probably off base. I think the original quote in the article is just not very well explained, and out of context.
What he seems to be *trying* to say is that you don't want to get into a situation where fixes things depends on just "anyone" fixing the problem (which is how most OSS bugs will get fixed -- volunteer effort, ya know?). Instead they want to pay someone for support, someone they can rely on to actually help them resolve problems. The point is, the fact that the software is free doesn't matter much to them. Paid, professional, and reliable tech support is costly in both Windows and linux, and MS apparently wins out for them (discounts, familiarity, overall market share, etc.) over Linux (no discounts from redhat for charity support, very little familiarty, tiny average-joe market share, etc.).
-K
If I remember correctly Al Capone was considered a big charity giver. So are some of the present day Mexican drug barons.