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.
We support a lot of networks for non-profit organizations. We usually go through techsoup for licensing and software. Microsoft always makes their stuff available, whereas companies like Intuit and Macromedia are usually out of stock. Too be fair Symantec usually has stuff available. And look at these MS prices:
g _name=TechSoupMain&category_name=Office+Tools+MS&P age=1&Cat1=Microsoft&CatCount=1 g _name=TechSoupMain&category_name=Servers+MS&Page=1 &Cat1=Microsoft&CatCount=1
http://www.techsoup.org/stock/category.asp?catalo
http://www.techsoup.org/stock/category.asp?catalo
Let us pray for these open-minded people whose software we are rue to use, that they may avoid eternal damnation for the path to hell is wide and 'open'. Let us be thankful we avoid damnation by avoiding their damn software.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
"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.
I'm the IT manager for a small charitable organisation (but in such a position that it needs someone like me)
.exe file. Windows.
:)
If I tried to put Linux on the desktops, erm I'd probably be sacked.
There are sooo many little 'bits and pieces' we use in this organisation which simply wouldn't work in Linux. Funders often provide their own software, for example, that we are expected to use in order to capture data and return facts and figures. Sometimes it's written in Access, sometimes VB or something else - but 99 times out of 100 it's for Windows.
Just recently we had to roll out some health and safety training software for our young trainees who we get paid good money for. Interestingly it's mostly written in Shockwave which is available for Linux I believe, but it's all wrapped in a
OpenOffice isn't quite there yet either - we did try it a few years ago (to be fair it'll have improved since), and aside from the staff saying "I'm not using this because I'm not used to it, put Office back on please" there were often so many little formatting/translation issues that didn't work properly when people took work home to their MS Office based computers.
Digital cameras are a big part of our work, for collecting training evidence. Unfortunately the departments were 'let loose' in buying their own digital cameras from those above me and so inevitably we ended up with a bunch that have a proprietary USB interface (as opposed to mass storage) and are not supported in Linux.
With the diversity of our projects, the project leaders just so often need a piece of custom software. Until Linux becomes more widely adopted, or WINE something resembling useful (sorry but it *still* doesn't run most of the software I throw at it) it is simply not viable. As much as we'd love to save the money, it turns out that the money is actually worth spending.
Unfortunately, although there is a religious crusade behind the basic existence of our charity, it's the one called Christianity - not the one called Linusanity
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
It re-opens the classic debate about the total cost of ownership
sczimme said: I must have missed something: when was this debate closed?
Oh man, you did NOT miss that thread!!! we resolved the TCO debate, Mac v Linux, Security models, and even Emacs vs Vi.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
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.
According to Netcraft they run their website on Red Hat servers. They moved from FreeBSD to Linux in September 2005. This might just be a hosting company change, but the fact the netblock is registed to them makes me think that they might run the servers themselves.
Seems a bit strange to me.
Tom.
In 2004 twenty tons of computer equipment was sent from Oslo in Norway to Eritrea. This is the largest shipment of computer technology from Norway to a developing country ever to have taken place. The software chosen to accompany the computers was Skolelinux, a Linux distribution initially developed for, and successfully deployed in, hundreds of Norwegian schools. This was annonced at the EUs Open Source Observatory 12 October, 2004:
2 -debconf6.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/3355/469
FAIR is an international non-profit NGO with its headquarters in Norway, aiding developing countries by supplying resources within ICT, such as hardware, software, training, information and support. By combining brand new hardware with first-class second-hand computers and the latest software upgrades applicable, FAIR aims to become a premier ICT supplier providing world leadership in cost effective computer networks and communication solutions.
http://www.fairinternational.org/
The Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research has founded a report about free software in schools. It covers planning and deployment of Skolelinux/DebianEdu that currently includes 234 Norwegian schools, 33,000 client machines, and 101,000 pupils and teachers. It cover technical issues, economical and organisational issues. There are also feedback on how teachers uses free software in teaching.
The report basicly says that Skolelinux/DebianEdu has 30-40 percent less Total Cost of Ownership compared with proprietary solutions. This is based on experiences with free and propretary software at many schools operated centrally.
http://developer.skolelinux.no/artikler/2006-04-0
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.
Of course he does. He's not a geek. Yesterday I convinced one of my customers to use OpenOffice.org over Microsoft Office. The only selling point she heard? "Free". Not "Free as in speech", but "no cost to acquire." And her next door neighbor is Ward Cunningham (this one, not this one,) yet she still didn't quite get "open source". The average person doesn't understand open source, nor do they care enough to learn. It's just the way the world works.
It is disappointing that Linux couldn't make more inroads at a nonprofit, but as the article says, it's much easier to find cheap Microsoft help than Linux help. (For example, my on-site consulting company charges 50% more for Linux work than for Microsoft work; simply because we only have two of us that know Linux.)
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com."
The purpose of that site was not known.