The theory behind open-source software is that it avoids many of the pitfalls - including cost - of closed alternatives. But Steven Buckley, who runs Christian Aid's common knowledge programme, prefers to buy software from the likes of Microsoft. Is this not odd for a charity? "Open-source doesn't mean free," he told BBC World Service's Digital Planet programme. "Quite often, if you install open-source software within an organisation, you have a support contract that goes with it - it's an essential part of operating that software. Over time, that can actually cost more than having Windows on an enterprise machine."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-07-26
Member since:2006-06-01
Right... 'cause MS's support contracts are free...
They are very inexpensive as you pay per incident, rather than say a yearly RedHat tax of 2500$.
As I've said before, the organization I work for has 3000+ desktops and 200+ servers and we spend beteween 1250 and 2500$ for Microsoft support because we only call them 5 - 10 times a year.
Edited 2006-11-08 22:06
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-06-01
Compared with a yearly Fedora/Ubuntu/Debian/Gentoo/FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD tax of 0$ 
You mean I can call someone up and get them to work on my problem non-stop for hours or days for 0$?
Cool. Where do I sign up?
(You do understand RedHat support costs 2500 a year and this article was about support ... don't you?)
Member since:2005-10-02
Well, it's about TCO. And if you already have people capable of giving support you don't have to pay a tax
When running closed source (no matter company) there is no way around paying a support tax - when using open source you can avoid the support tax, IF you have employees capable of handling the system. If you have an IT-department with "I-can-only-click-on-buttons" employees you'll have to pay a support tax. But in that case you've hired the wrong employees.
Member since:2006-07-26
So, by your logic...
$1250 (minimum support from MS) + (3,000 (desktops) * $100 (I'm guessing in MS's favor for a discount for bulk purchase of XP Pro)) + (200 (servers) * $200 (I don't know what this number should be, but I figure for client access licenses plus discount it'd be at least this number. Probably much higher.)) = $401250.
vs
1 Redhat Enterprise linux destop extension pack (as many installs as you want) = $3500.
1 Redhat AS Server (as many installs as you want) + Premium support. = $2500 / year.
If you had to upgrade Redhat desktop every year, your looking at something like $6,000 / year. So, it'd take what... 66 years of RedHat support and systems to equal ONE year of MS support and systems?
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-10-02
Exactly.
I'd like to see some numbers on what costs companies actually have - like downtime, legal actions from customers due to missing or faulty delivery caused by system failure and anything else one could possibly think of.
Data from a few thousand companies could perhaps be enough to give a decent picture of the trend.
Member since:2006-06-01
1 Redhat AS Server (as many installs as you want) + Premium support. = $2500 / year.
2500 per year for each server if you want support. It would be a violation of your RedHat agreement to try to get support for a non-covered server. And your license gives them the right to do an audit.
Thats 500,000 a year right there.
And we buy about 20-40 servers a year. Which means we pay about 3000-6000 per year for server software total. (K12 discount)
RedHat WS is 299 per desktop for 1 year support. That would be about (3000 * 300) 900,000 per year. The other options only get you 30 days of support.
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/client/
And I think they cost more than we pay for XP or close enough.
RedHat is too damned expensive.
You know, non-commies can do math too.
Most cultists assume people who use Microsoft are too stupid to be allowed anywher near computers.
On the other, we who use Microsoft can usually do realistic math in our heads better than the cultists can do since they live in a kind of never never land where everything is free ... except when you actually cost it out.
Edited 2006-11-08 23:33
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-06
"You know, non-commies can do math too. "
You are a McCartyst looser , your worst then those you attack , you know that Jail time for illegal actions like yours are still in effect today :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
"RedHat is too damned expensive."
Unlike Microsoft windows who as only one controling company behind it , GNU/Linux as more then Red Hat.
Member since:2005-11-11
//2500 per year for each server if you want support. It would be a violation of your RedHat agreement to try to get support for a non-covered server. And your license gives them the right to do an audit.
Thats 500,000 a year right there.
And we buy about 20-40 servers a year. Which means we pay about 3000-6000 per year for server software total. (K12 discount)
RedHat WS is 299 per desktop for 1 year support. That would be about (3000 * 300) 900,000 per year. The other options only get you 30 days of support.
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/client/
And I think they cost more than we pay for XP or close enough.
RedHat is too damned expensive. //
Did you ever work out these sums if you replace all occurrences of "RedHat" with "Ubuntu" or "Ubuntu server"?
For example, it would become: "Which means we pay about 0000-0000 per year for server software total. (everypersons discount)"
Go here: http://www.ubuntu.com/support and you will find a lot of free support (especially for charities). Even if there are charges, it does not indicate if these are per-machine costs, I don't believe they are.
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2005-07-06
"They are very inexpensive as you pay per incident,"
No , they are given to you and come with the hardware.
The service and additionnal software are not discounted as you falsely suggest and is where they make there money.
"the organization I work for has"
How many tech on site for how much each ?
Member since:2006-06-03
As I've said before, the organization I work for has ...
What company is that? NorthWinds?
Try looking at the figures for Canonical/Ubuntu. Server support $750/year. OS Licence: $0. RedHat isn't the only commercial Linux company, only the most expensive. In a competitive market (The Linux OS market) rather than a Monopoly, some products cost more than others. It's part of what we call capitalism.
Member since:2006-06-01
Member since:2005-06-30
Member since:
2006-06-19
Member since:
2005-07-26
Unfortunately, the conflicting studies on TCO mean that both sides of the argument can back up their position with data, and no real "universal" conclusion can be made. (I feel that this is because there is no "universal" PC hardware/software/function setup, which is really quite obvious)
One point that he made that I disagree with as a reason to shun Open Source is:
He also explained that what is seen as one of the advantages of open-source - that the core code can be examined by anyone - could actually work against the charity.
"We are a funding organisation that ships £90m around the world - the last thing you want to do is open up your systems to anybody to have a look at to deal with bugs," he said.
This makes it seem that because the OS and/or apps are Open Source, that your systems and data are opened up to anybody, or that bug maintenance (updates) are awful to deal with. That is simply not true.
(edit made to formatting quoted section of source article for clarity)
Edited 2006-11-08 20:37
Member since:2006-01-08
Seen "Hacking Democracy"? Diebold CEO used the same argument when the source code for GEMS was left out in a public FTP, as if the system was insecure because the source code became available...
This fallacy seems common to people against Open Source, like this guy. As if he isn't exposing his data to the world if a 0-day lets someone crack one of his "enterprise machine(s)"... 
Member since:2005-11-10
Ahhhh, these are non tech people that have fallin for the Microsoft line. I have a non profit group I started to give open source software to school, churches etc.
The thing we found is that MS will give people software and computers. Nice of them right? But then when it's upgrade time boy are they in for a shock. Orrrrrr, they use the same old stuff forever and ever and wonder why it doesn't work right etc
We go in and hook them up for free, and they pay a small fee for tech support (Almost nothing) In the end if they are smart they save a TON of money over all.
Member since:2005-12-15
I have to say I agree, except I wouldn't tag them as a...oles. Personal attacks don't form a solid basis for an arguement in my book.
What is very much typical from so many pro-FOSS folk is to immediately attack someone because they believe that from their judgement and experience that a Microsoft solution is cheaper.
The comment above put it exactly how it is.. there is a great deal of data supporting both sides of the debate and for me the bottom line is that neither system will fit all situations perfectly and the most effectively (if that's a word).
It's not as if he wants to waste money when he's running / involved in a charity. Perhaps his problem is support or a lack of skills.
The reality is that the vast majority of people "know" Windows far better than they "know" a Linux based solution. That, as well as many other aspects, has a cost associated with it.
Perhaps instead of just attacking this man, how about taking the value adding approach, see why he felt the way he did in detail and where possible offer an alternative that is more cost effective.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-12-05
Member since:
2006-04-11
Member since:2006-06-02
This is why I don't donate to charities.
Stupidity runs rampant.
The point of charities is not to champion the cause of GNU/Linux and OSS, but to provide support and or relief to those in need. It sounds as though Christian Aid had at least considered an OSS-solution, but turned it down in favour of something mainstream and -- despite what it's detractors often claim -- still works.
At the end of the day, they sat down, crunched the numbers, and an MS-solution appeared to be the way to go. A successful charity like Christian Aid does not succeed by making stupid decisions.
Member since:2006-11-09
[added the paragraph on licencing and support]
You should not base your decision to donate (or not) on the basis of your opinion of their IT dept but on your belief in whether they can deliver the service they claim to the people they support.
I am the IT Manager at a UK National Charity ( http://www.cafamily.org.uk ) and I would like to distance myself from the views of Steven Buckley as shown here. We use OSS a lot and it is of substantial benefit to us both financially and in terms of our long term IT strategy.
For more on how we use OSS - and this is not intended to be an advert for us - please see http://www.cafamily.org.uk/oss
Open Source has categorically saved us money and enables us and an IT team to deliver services to our colleagues and the people they support in an efficient and cost effective manner. In fact some of the stuff we do would be well beyond our budget had we chosen a proprietary software platform.
With regards to support - I have a mistrust of outsourced supportand hence we employ our own support staff. Because of our use of OSS - we have ensured they either have OS experience or are prepared to learn. Our OSS support costs are peanuts compared to the amount of time we spend on the proprietary software we have. And whilst Microsoft (and others) do offer significant charity discounts this does not avoid the whole problem of having to buy CALs just because you want your client machines to - shock - be served by your servers. Our OSS solutions are scalable with zero outlay on licences. This gives us a bonus in both time and money.
And I haven't got down to the security and logistical licencing issues involved in proprietary software.
Note: These are my personal views but are based on experience here at Contact a Family.
Edited 2006-11-09 13:31
Member since:2006-04-21
You should not base your decision to donate (or not) on the basis of your opinion of their IT dept but on your belief in whether they can deliver the service they claim to the people they support.
How clueful their IT support is could be a very big part of deciding "whether they can deliver the service they claim". It's safe to assume ;-) that if people give money to a charity it's because they want it to go to the people the charity claims it supports, so if a charity is spending bucketloads on IT solutions (or anything else) they don't need, at least a portion of the money donated isn't going where it should be.
Member since:
2005-09-28
The open source philosophy is closer to being in touch with the ideology of most charity organizations. I suspect that, as third world countries begin to develop their IT infrastructure, many of these NGOs will be at war with corporations such as MS, due to the liberties they are bound to take. Also, Buckley doesn't seem to take into a account the problems to any organization presented by lock-in.
At least with OSS, an NGO is free from any alignment with any corporate interests - a goal that should be a significant part of the IT strategy of any large charity organization.
I think that NGOs of this sort should be a target for organizations such as Ubuntu. A huge, commercial organization such as a bank can perhaps afford to replace each and every machine every four years; however, the economics of a back-water sorting office or a the backroom office area of a charity shop work a bit diferently.
I wonder how his estimations about TCO scale between the main offices and the problems of equipping the backroom office of a charity shop? Often in situations such as that, one has to equip a donated machine with software and to make everything work without using any budget. Open source could be an ideal platform within resource starved environments such as these. But, it's going to be difficult for a to run Linux in situations such as these while the head office runs MS.
Basically, charity organizations have to do a lot with very little and if you're tied into MS, you're always going to be the loser.
Member since:
2005-11-15
Microsoft has a killer program that gives software to non-profit. Check it out at www.techsoup.com. Microsoft gives all levels of software away for literally pennies on the dollar. Non-profits can install server software, XP, Office, Sharepoint, Exchange, etc, etc for a few hundred dollars, including all licensing. It's a killer deal and really softens the price blow to entities with small budgets.
Member since:2005-09-28
Yes but...
MS software is engineered to be proprietary.
These $100 laptops serve as an example. Is the word processor software going to be 100% compatible with MS Office? Does this mean that an aid worker will have a laptop that is document incompatible with with a $100 laptop? How about at the base office?
One of the beauties of a lot of OSS is that it uses open file formats - you're not locked into any platform. So, for example, you don't HAVE to run Linux at home because you have Linux at the office.
I'm sure that MS are aware that NGOs are increasingly embracing IT in the field and would be an ideal breading ground for OSS adoption. As big-hearted as I'm sure MS are, I'm surprised that they don't pay the NGOs to use their software. It would be well worth it for them.
Member since:2005-11-11
//Microsoft has a killer program that gives software to non-profit. Check it out at www.techsoup.com. Microsoft gives all levels of software away for literally pennies on the dollar. Non-profits can install server software, XP, Office, Sharepoint, Exchange, etc, etc for a few hundred dollars, including all licensing. It's a killer deal and really softens the price blow to entities with small budgets.//
Even on this comparison a Microsoft solution is expensive compared to, say, Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS. There is no "price blow" at all for Ubuntu or PCLinuxOS.
It is horrendously more expensive to run Microsoft software if you factor in the downtime due to malware, which Microsoft-sponsored TCO studies never do. Nearly all malware is found only on Microsoft platforms.
Member since:2006-11-09
// It's a killer deal and really softens the price blow to entities with small budgets. //
The charity discount does not avoid the licence headache for charity IT Managers ( I know I am one ). For example having to buy new CALs just to allow one more client machine *than you currently have licences for) to your Exchange box.
It is here that Microsoft and their like make their "killing" - once you have your Exhange you have to keep going back to them as your organisation grows (never mind the forced upgrades).
For my OSS solution I have no such worries - it has 100% zero cost scalable in terms of licencing and no additional hardware costs beyond a proprietary solution.
End result - we spend less on licences and more on helping people.
Member since:2005-07-06
"It is here that Microsoft and their like make their "killing" - once you have your Exhange you have to keep going back to them as your organisation grows (never mind the forced upgrades)."
Never experienced that. We went back for more and they were happy to take that application on and provide more items.
You're not doing your charity a good enough service if you're not asking and just paying.
Member since:2006-11-09
// Never experienced that. We went back for more and they were happy to take that application on and provide more items.//
Actually we use MS Office as part of a select agreement specifically for Charities through an umbrealla org we are part of (in common with other charities in the UK).
I have requested from several suppliers under this agreement what the costs would be and have been informed several times that we would need to buy further CALs if we wished to extend beyond our original licences.
//You're not doing your charity a good enough service if you're not asking and just paying. //
I am not just paying and I do ask. On the basis of responses to those questions - from various suppliers - I make my decisions. In fact we don't use Exchange or any other MS server product because I don't want to be locked into any vendor and want the scalability, extendibility, flexibility and cost-effectiveness of all those that using an OSS solution gives me.
Member since:
2006-11-08
Time to get your hands dirty in your own tech support.
If your people would mine the open source community for support and RTM instead of suckling at the MS teat-bank you wouldn't need outside support for much and you'd save a lot of donated money to put back into your charity where it should be.
Support yourself for a change.. Hello - It's open source - You have the code in your hands. You also have plenty of security options freely available to you.
The kind of overhead that is incurred by this Corporate hand holding mentality - and other mis-management of funds in NP's - is the reason why a lot of us would rather put our donations directly into the hands of needy people and avoid the middleman!
Get a grip human.
Member since:2006-06-24
Y'know, it always baffles me as to why the open source community believes that 'having the code in your hands'is some kind of advantage for everybody
So my mother calls me and says that there's something wrong with her Linux installation; so what do I say:
"C'mon Mom, you have the source code; fix it yourself."
Perhap like 99% of the computer using public, these charity folk actually don't see computers as anything other than a tool to get something done. They don't have the time or the inclination to dig around in someone else's code.
'Fix it yourself?'
Nope, they'll just use Windows. No source, but less hassle.
But you know what? Forget it? Rather than accept that there may be reasons for not deploying Linux, that can easily be fixed; it's much easier to just brand folk who have legitimate reasons for not using it, as stupid.
Member since:2005-08-28
Member since:2005-12-15
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-01-07
Member since:2006-01-07
I think your argument and the article,is largely irrelevent. having the source code isn't the point. No one ..and i mean NO ONE outside of developers and project specific developers at that, really care if they have the source code or not. The fact is that many open source software are free, entirely reliable, and cost effective.. The whole idea of digging around the code to find a problem is ludicrous as applied to a user. And you know it. The whole idea of the open source code thing is.. well.. go look up some of RMS's writings.
Member since:2006-06-03
No, but when I am developing something system-level and I find an un-documented feature, on Linux/OSS I can call up the source and make my software bug-free by implementing it correctly.
With MS, If it's undocumented, I have to guess (or pay an exhorbitant Partner program licence fee) and that means that my software is going to be less stable when working with $M products
Member since:2006-04-28
Of course a number of these charities will have some in house developers hired to run various things, custom access and .NET based data related junk, based on something non free by MS, resold as something non-free by someone else and then finally hacked at by their overpaid inhouse dev team, surely if you're going to do this kind of thing then starting on a Free and Open platform and getting techies who can cope with this idea isn't such a bad move?
As long as the likes of Steven Buckley happen to prefer the idea of big name branded software products i guess all of your donations to christian aid will undergo a small Microsoft Tax, I suppose its up to us to boycott these charities if they don't work in a way that we feel is acceptable, if they want support all they need do is ask the community, if they are too proud or stupid to do so then just pass them by.
Of course RH, Novell, etc, all need to wake up and realise that providing free or low cost support to charities would be a very sensible move, though they may not be quite as well able to afford it as Bill, and maybe they can make ridiculously over the top donations to charity the same way Mr and Mrs Gates do too.
Member since:2005-12-15
But what you're suggesting is pricely the problem for many organisations. They already have a skill base developed either intentionally or though users running Windows at home themselves. The already have an investment here which they just cannot throw away.
That aside, you shouldn't have to "mine" for support, nor should you have to wade through user manuals or seemingly endless (and frankly fragmented) Google pages or study the source code to find a solution.
Yes Red Hat and others do provide paid support, which is great and it certainly has its place, but realistically it all comes down to a dollar value which is measured in far greater terms than just the aquisition of the software, the hardware and the support contract.
Productivity, learning curves, training, developing internal support, aquiring alternative software solutions and just transition alone all add up to varying degrees of value to each organisation.
There's no denying that there are, in many people's opinion, great benefits of using open source software, but you have to take a step back and understand what this all means for organisations. There's a risk involved in just dropping Microsoft based solutions.
There is in reality absolutely no solid tangable proof that open source software will be cheaper, easier, better and increase producivity (which drives in many ways profitability). There are too many arguements on both sides of the debate here to say one is better than the other.
With every release of Office and Windows the exact same could be argued, however the advantages Microsoft have are history and a very well established experience base among both internal support and even the most non technical of users (who support themselves to a degree). This has a real tangible effect on profitibility in my view.
Does that mean this is right for all organisations? No, of coarse not but at the same time it is nieve to think that all of the organisations who are using Microsoft technology are so daft as to just blindly accept whatever marketing campaign Microsoft beats.
To me it's actually beyond nieve.. it's just plain ignorant.
Edited 2006-11-08 22:38
Member since:
2006-04-10
The real heart of it is here:
But Mr Buckley said that Linux is not widely-used enough for the charity's staff to be proficient at it, meaning that there is a cost to the organisation in terms of skills.
He has people who know Windows, he has to hire people who know Linux. If you have people who know both, or if you have to hire it out no matter the OS, the equation becomes very different.
Linux takes far less manpower to admin, and maintain, but if the option is more work for people you already have, or hiring out the work to people you don't have, that skews things. Maybe he would have been best off to look at where he could get the services free or discounted. Many LUG's have people who do support for charities for free.
Member since:2005-07-06
Most of the time they don't have to be proficient with Windows as much as they have to be proficient with a certain Web-App or a certain "Specialized" app made for the organization. Show them Firefox, Evolution, and OpenOffice... there shouldn't be that much of a conversion problem over from the various versions of IE and Office they're all used to (remember, each version changes).
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-08-16
Maybe I should welcome you in the wonderful new world. I work as support/sysadmin on various jobs, and I have seen few places, if any at all, where you could really phase out Windows. Companies, government and education most always depend on specialized software that just isn't available in the open source world.
People need:
- CAD applications (AutoCAD, Solidworks, Pro/E)
- Proper graphics software (no the GIMP doesn't cut it for companies)
- Proper video editing software
- Excel and Word (WITH all those Access based macros that are prevalent in most companies)
- SPSS
And schools need to run the software that is provided with books, that is just available under windows.
I really like linux and Open Source, and will get some linux certifications in the future, but common sense and my employer tell me to obtain at least a MCSA before doing that.
Member since:2005-07-11
Our school district runs diskless Linux clients in all the elementary school labs (30 - 60 computers per elementary * 37 elems).
We also have one complete secondary school without *any* Windows computers. The entire school runs diskless Linux clients. We have several other secondaries in the planning stages for moving toward the same setup.
The hardest part was getting teachers out of the "we have to teach the programs that are used in the business world" mindset and into the "we need to teach concepts not software" mindset. Once that happened, the move to OpenOffice.org was easy.
Our IT department was filled with Novell certified techs. Most of those certifications have expired, and we are all now LPIC-2 certified (Linux Professional Institute Certification).
There are several other school districts in the province that have looked at our setup, and have started to use similar setups (LTSP thin clients and diskless clients).
We used to have an annual IT budget over $4 million CDN. That was the year I was hired, 5 years ago. Since then we've had the budget chopped almost in half every year (our current budget is $200,000). And yet we have the lowest student to computer ratio in the province. Have fully operational labs in every school. And have students that are actually excited about using the computer labs. We've received several comments from new secondary students wondering why they can't use Linux in the secondaries.
Member since:2005-08-16
While it is great that you have the luxury that you can switch to FOSS, I can hardly imagine that the school where I currently work switches to linux/open-source. There are some 40 programs that come with educational methods, or that are used as resources in the education programme, that aren't offered by the publisher under linux. It really is a chicken/egg problem, and for publishers there is no compelling need to be flexible.
Member since:
2005-06-30
Many non-profit organizations can get lots of different commercial software, including MS software, for little or no cost. When you consider the fact that most of them also don't have in-house IT and that per-visit support is often less expensive for Windows than for Linux, it takes a lot more to convince a non-profit to use Linux or other open source software (even if Linux allows them to be more productive or costs less in the long-term).
I dealt with a non-profit that actually was considering open source, but they were will to pay a minimal cost to go with something familiar rather than the unknown.
Member since:
2006-07-13
IBM will sell you a support contract for Windows, Red Hat, or SuSE. You can find local companies that will support these products as will. When you pay Lots of money to MS for their products - that only includes the most basic of support. I know - I have had to get support for MS products in some cases only weeks old and had to pay for it because it was not an install problem. So paying that large sum up front does not guarantee any prepaid support down the road.
It costs about $200.00 to have a local Linux support person come in and install cent OS Linux on a server and set it up. It costs about $200.00 to have the local Windows guru to install Windows 2003 plus the cost of the Windows license. In that I will be going back to these people for most of my support - I see no reason in either case to pay some major national firm to supply support for my systems and once set up I will make fewer support request call for Linux on a ratio of about one Linux request for every three Windows request - one must wonder why you must have a contract with a large national firm why not just pay as you go, it will cost you far less in the long run.
What is missed in this article is that 1. Buying stuff form Microsoft does not include any fix full support period - yet the Red Hat price is in fact a full support package. 2. Purchasing a full support package from a national support firm - is always expensive. 3. If cost is so important - get Open SuSE or Cent OS and purchase only the help you need when you need it - be prepared to do all the simple stuff yourself and you will have good reliable systems and spend a lot less doing it. 4. If you want the full paid support – then don't complain that it cost money and be sure that what you are comparing apples to apples when comparing the cost of a full service contract to something else.
Now don't even get me started on copier service contracts.
Member since:
2006-01-07
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
there are some sad truths in that article.
first of, there are more people out there with some sort of hands on experience with MS products. the question is, what level of competency are we talking about.
if its just about turning the box on, logging in, firing up whatever program your after (maybe a spreadsheet), enter whatever data that needed entering, then logging of and shutting down.
id say most anyone can do that just as well on a preconfigured linux box as they can on a preconfigured windows box.
however, ones you go beyond that, to configuring and installing, things become vastly different in terms of numbers.
and as some posts here point out, there is a question of scale walking around to. when you can no longer manage the day to day tech support with the local linux geek and friends, and a couple of gray box donations the local businesses was trowing away anyways, one may find that a proper tech support deal with windows or a linux distro may cost just the same.
thats just the thing, linux works wonders for home and soho use. ie, low scale where more often then not you don't call microsoft when something goes blue. you call the local geek kid or similar.
its on the mom and pop level that linux could get in some nice punches. but more often then not microsoft have a solid lock because of one thing, games. and by the looks of it, games are whats going to leverage vista onto the home desktops (this based on directx 10 not being available on xp or older).
still, there is some interesting stuff happening. in norway there is a linux distro in the works aimed at schools. http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/
its supposed to have a simple installer that can set up a thin client terminal, a workstation or a server from the same cd.
should be a nice basis (at least) for building a distro for organizations that need a solution.
Member since:
2005-08-18
Member since:2005-11-11
//How does one charity organization preferring MS become "Charities Shun Open Source Code"?
Mr. Buckley doesn't speak for any other organization than Christian Aid so extrapolating that into charities in general shun OSS code is quite a reach. //
Exactly.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39166840,00.htm
Member since:2006-11-09
I agree. http://www.socialsource.org.uk
http://www.cafamily.org.uk
I know several charities that use OSS and indeed would not be able to do as much as they do if they had to sheel out (even a discounted amount) for software and support unsecure applications.