Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

Is Open Source Really Cheaper?

The NZ government has effectively derailed the normal process of negotiating a license agreement with Microsoft to cover the massive amount of software it uses on its PCs and this has got a bunch of people really excited.

The proponents of open-source software (OSS) are jumping for joy, as they see this to be the golden opportunity they've waited years to exploit.

Instead of the usual decree that PC-software=Microsoft that such a single negotiated deal effectively becomes, departments are now required to strike their own deals in a climate where their budgets have become significantly constrained.

And, if you're trying to save money, what better way than by switching from an expensive Microsoft product to a *free* open-source alternative?

Or at least that's the theory.

If we lived in a perfect world then arms and agencies of the government would be silly not to dump Microsoft's products and switch to the free alternatives.

Kick out MS Office and roll out Open Office. Dump Microsoft's server software and install Linux. What could possibly go wrong?

Well unfortunately, there's this little three letter acronym which tends to get in the way.

TCO

For those who don't recognise it, that's "Total Cost of Ownership".

Now I'm not Microsoft cheerleader, as regular readers will know, but anyone who thinks that tossing out Bill's products and replacing it with a raft of open-source equivalent software will save money is being rather naive.

Sure, a copy of Open Office costs nothing, while purchasing Microsoft Office costs cold hard cash -- but the purchase price of software is often the smallest part of that TCO.

First of all there's training to consider.

People can't use software unless they know how.

Because it's ubiquitous, there are very few people who don't know the basics of using Windows, Word, Excel and other code from Microsoft. Many people have taught themselves to a reasonable degree of competence long before they consider taking a job with the civil service. That means training costs are greatly reduced.

Now, while Open Office may be very similar to Microsoft Office, it isn't identical and there is a learning curve that has to be paid for somehow (by lower initial productivity or by formal (re)training.

Then there are the costs of upgrading.

Although it is a child of necessity, Microsoft does have some pretty useful update mechanisms built into its platforms. When it's necessary to roll out new versions of its software, individuals or administrators can do so without too much pain or effort. The same is not necessarily true for much of the open-source code out there, especially if it's running on a flavour of Linux.

Now I can hear the OSS proponents whirling like dervishes and screaming "lies, lies" as they read these words.

There are millions of people using open source alternatives to Microsoft's code and they manage to learn the quirks of their software and keep it updated -- so why can't civil servants?

Well the big difference is that your average civil servant isn't interested in software other than as a tool to do a job. They don't care about things such as shell scripts, RPMs, root passwords, file checksums and the like. They (and more importantly) their bosses simply want them to perform the most work in the minimum time.

Now it's true that a growing amount of OSS is now pretty polished and as good as the commercial alternative but no software is perfect. So what happens when your OSS application packs a sad and dumps right in the middle of an important job? Who do you ring to get instant support?

We all know that the world of Microsoft is well structured from a support perspective.

So long as you've got the money, someone has the support you need for the Microsoft application you're running. And remember, in business (even the civil service) time=money. Free support is not free if you are forced to sit around and wait until someone on the other side of the world comes in and checks their email -- especially given the time-zone issues.

Before I get hundreds of emails from OSS proponents, all berating me for being so harsh about their products, I will now attempt to bring some balance to this subject.

There are some definite benefits to OSS that are perhaps worth far more than the "free" price-tag.

In general, OSS is a lot safer than the commercial code delivered by Microsoft.

The fact that there are huge numbers of clever enthusiasts pawing over the code means that there are almost always fewer critical vulnerabilities in OSS code.

What's more, because Microsoft's products represent a much bigger (and therefore more lucrative) target, malware writers tend to largely ignore the free equivalents.

Now we only have to look at the damage that the nasty piece of malware called Conficker has already done within some arms of the civil service to see that the cost of preventing infections and cleaning up if/when those protections fail might well be worth the shift to OSS and mitigate all those negatives I've suggested previously.

So should the government and its agencies shift to open-source?

Should they tell Microsoft to take a long walk off a short plank?

I wish I could give you an answer, but I can't.

As I've outlined, there are arguments for and against but no clear conclusion.

But here's an idea...

If we included the use of open-source software in our schools then we may well find that the next generation of civil servant comes to the job already skilled in such applications. That at least would significantly reduce the training burden associated with a shift away from Microsoft code -- and it would also allow schools to get more bang for their IT buck.

I'd like to hear from readers as to which way they think government (and schools) ought to go. Open Source or Microsoft?

Please visit the sponsor!

Have your say on this...

PERMALINK to this column

Oh, and don't forget today's sci/tech news headlines

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font