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."
Come on, everybody knows that there are no developers in Africa. It must be Nigerian scam!
Ezekiel 23:20
Oh yeah, that's exactly what they need in Nigeria--more programming skills.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"'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."
"'You buy Microsoft software, and you buy it once and for all, the cost that we tell you is the total cost for ownership.' "
Yeah, like phasing out support for older OS's. And putting in new formats for the next Office iteration. I had to buy the new Office for home because those who upgraded never remember to downgrade. Not to mention that if you don't have a service contract you pay $X (I forget the number) per service call. I'm sure there are more instances of how "buy once, this is TCO" is wrong, but I'm not up to date on MS's current procedures.
What's the cost of OSS? Learning curve? Like Office 2007 didn't cause most people fits when it was released? I don't use Linux, so I'm no fanboy, but that statement was just ridiculous.
(Oh, and I graduate with my MIS degree tonight! Sorry, just happy.)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
The total cost of a windows box, the entire cost of ownership, is the up front cost of the MS software? Really?
Jesus, I've been a fool for using Linux on my personal systems. Why, considering all the man hours I've put into it, I would have saved virtually hundreds of dollars by paying for a quality Microsoft product!
I'm going to run out right away and buy a new operating system! Looking forward to never having to configure anything, and having a bug free system that does everything I want!
(Mods - Joke. Really.)
Wow. So all that money that we're spending hiring administrators, paying for software support and beating applications with a crowbar until they run properly is _completely unnecessary!_ I have been such a fool for all of these years. All I needed to do was pay the sticker price for a copy of Windows Server and that would have been enough for everything!
*cough cough cough* *mumble* *cough cough*
The last time I checked an M$ Eula, you don't actually own any code you pay for. you are actually paying a use license. M$ retains ownership rights to the software.
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
Whenever I hear someone in the U.S. say that, it's usually quickly followed by a Microsoft or BSA representative calling them to clarify that the term "ownership" means "we still own it, we're just giving you a license to use it, and if you want more, you will pay us more."
If this guy genuinely believes Microsoft products are a "buy once, own forever" proposition, I think he's in for a bit of a shock once the install base reaches critical mass.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
Trying to promote Linux in places like Africa that are still working on their IT industries could be perceived as paternalistic. The sad, sad fact is that the majority of the western world uses MS Windows, and that if you try and say that despite this, African users should embrace Linux - it can come across as if you are fobbing them off with something second rate. You aren't, of course, but that isn't how the Microsoft Ministry of Truth is going to spin it.
The best way to promote Linux in developing markets is to promote it in developed markets. Countries that want to build their IT industry will, logically, look to how its done in countries with successful IT industries. Any increase in the Linux user base in the United States or Europe will be mirrored by an increase in much of the rest of the world.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
"You buy Microsoft software, and you buy it once and for all, the cost that we tell you is the total cost for ownership."
You can't really expect me to think that people in Africa are that fucking stupid to believe this line of bullshit...
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
You don't buy the software, you license it until the next version of Windows comes out and your software becomes incompatible with that, and your computer has virtually no resale value as the software has to be totally wiped else you risk a visit from the BSA. And according to Gartner the TCO for a company to support Windows was $9,784 per anum per computer (1997). You think it's come down in the mean while :)
davecb5620@gmail.com
That only the government and the largest enterprises are buying software, all the rest is pirated.
So "Free/Open Source" software is at exactly the same price as "Closed Source" software.
And there is a sick fascination with "the rich people" although they became rich by ripping you off.
And the main supperiority of "Closed Source software" is that it gives more opportunity for "back door handlings"...
And of course the "donor organisations" are much better at recommending "nice donor nation originated products" than local "service"...
And thus the blood of africa is still flowing out to the occidental world...
Dude, please read TFA/S a little more closely.
Microsoft is claiming that. The person who said those words? Microsoft. A very high-ranking official in Microsoft's African operations.
He hasn't spent too long listening to Microsoft... he's spent too long being Microsoft.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
He was kind enough to set me up, via email, with a very lucrative business deal where I stand to make huge profits.
Of course, my upfront costs keep mounting, but he assured me when he asked for my account numbers that the funds will shortly be directly deposited to my bank.
Dear Sir, I am a minister in the Office of Software. A recent license audit has uncovered $1.6 billion (ONE BILLION SIX HUNDRED THOUSAND USD) of software licenses in an account at the ministry. The account was for a project that was killed in a planning accident on the way to implementation. Since there was no next project for the licenses the licenses have gone unclaimed. I am asking your assitance in getting the licenses out of my country. As teh minister I can certify you as the regestered lincense owner. For your troubles I will give you 20% of teh licenses. If you are interested in this offer please reply.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The big advantage of Microsoft is that you can buy it on a disk.
The big advantage of Ubuntu is that Canonical will send you, free of charge, an entire Operating System, complete with application stacks, on a DVD if you ask.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
Like Richard Stallman said at the WSIS Tunis panel discussion 2005: This is electronic colonization, i.e. the Africans are supposed to pay for foreign products and remain ignorant and dependent.
LOLOLOLOLOL
I'm a manager at a /major/ East-African health-care organization based in Uganda.
Years ago (before I arrived) someone had a highly customized Microsoft Navision system put in for our HMS/ERP system.
If we want to modify anything more in-depth than what color a button is we have to call up a Microsoft Licensed Consultant who has a key-file on a USB stick that allows them access to the inner-workings of the system -- and pay them hourly.
This system is the beating fucking heart of our organization and we can't even make something a required field or modify the validation of an entry without calling these circus clowns up.
The default license allows access by 36 simultaneous users. Guess how much Microsoft Nairobi forces us to pay per-user when we want to add more? try EIGHT HUNDRED FUCKING DOLLARS PER SEAT -- AFTER DISCOUNT.
Want to store more information than we currently do? BUY MORE DATABASE TABLES.
Dr. Cheikh Modibo Diarra either has no idea what he's talking about or is an outright fucking liar, because Microsoft has nothing anywhere near a business model that works for Africa.
We can't wait to get off their system.
And you're assuming that knowledge and ability are somehow static.
I find this particular line of logic particularly irksome. That's mostly because nearly every single thing I've learned about computers, I've learned under my own steam. There's no mystical Linux Club where knowledge of systems and how they work are magically and instantly conferred on members.
There is, however, a school of thought that encourages lifting oneself up by one's bootstraps, and which (handsomely) rewards curiousity and initiative.
And lest I be accused of arrogance toward those who haven't had the same education and opportunities as I've had, I should mention that I'm putting my money where my mouth is: I work full-time in the developing world, and over the last 5 years or so have watched Linux begin to flourish on desktops and servers in the country where I've taken up residence.
The hardest part of building acceptance for FOSS generally and Linux in particular has been getting people to move away from the perspective that working in IT consists of nothing more than learning a series of incantations to be performed when your Windows machine inevitably goes FUBAR.
It's taken time, and the work isn't nearly done yet, but I'm gratified by the knowledge that, of the young IT apprentices I've taken on over the years, nearly every single one of them holds a responsible professional position managing high-end equipment, a significant part of which is running (or running on) FOSS software. Not one of them had any formal computer training before I happened along. For most of them, their employment opportunities were effectively nil.
Based on my personal and professional experience, therefore, I have to conclude that your argument is specious, misleading and counter-productive.
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.