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."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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:
2005-07-26
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