Slashdot Mirror


Open Source's Battle In Africa

eldavojohn writes "The BBC has more details about something we last discussed in 2008 — the showdown of open source versus proprietary software in Africa. When discussing the issue of cost, the piece quotes Microsoft's chairman on the scene, Dr. Cheikh Modibo Diarra, who alludes that open source continually costs you money by saying 'You buy Microsoft software, and you buy it once and for all, the cost that we tell you is the total cost for ownership.' On the other end of the story is Ken Banks from Kiwanja.net who has spent 15 years developing open source applications in Africa. His logic is that 'Today we're seeing growing open-source programmer, developer communities in South Africa, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria and other African countries. Clearly, if you have this informal programming sector coming up, access to source code is almost critical if they are going to be able to take advantage of these new tools that are emerging.' Well, the battle rages on, hopefully the emerging African developers and users pick the tool(s) that suit their needs the best."

3 of 172 comments (clear)

  1. Sure! by GMFTatsujin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "'You buy Microsoft software, and you buy it once and for all, the cost that we tell you is the total cost for ownership.'"

    And then Microsoft stops supporting the product, changes the formats the products uses, and makes prior formats erratic or impossible to implement. It's a good thing you'll enjoy your purchase of brand new software, because you'll be doing it again and again and again.

    Or, you can go the Open Source route, which is continually and freely developed, usually for free-as-in-beer, and respects its own history. And if development stops, it's usually because some better Open Source project forked off or replaced it.

    Better as in "it performs a better job," not better as in "we'd better release a new version to keep our market share."

    1. Re:Sure! by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As somebody who currently keeps the paychecks coming by being there when the software that my employer "bought once and for all" breaks in various horrible ways; I can tell you that "the cost that we tell you" is very much not the "total cost of ownership".

    2. Re:Sure! by digsbo · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Also consider the cost of test systems! Oh, how I bemoan the lack of test systems when license fees prevent me from having a production-like system.

      I never anticipated the death-by-a-thousand-papercuts mode of inoperation I would experience when moving from a linux to an MS shop. Really, you can't even legally run the OS on a VM without appropriate licensing. When you run commercial/proprietary, you run costly.