Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 8th Nov 2006 19:59 UTC, submitted by Coxy
GNU, GPL, Open Source 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."
Permalink for comment 180193
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
The real heart of it
by amadensor on Wed 8th Nov 2006 21:58 UTC
Member since:

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.

Reply Score: 2