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."
Thread beginning with 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
amadensor
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.

Reply Score: 2

RE: The real heart of it
by intangible on Wed 8th Nov 2006 22:21 in reply to "The real heart of it"
intangible 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).

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: The real heart of it
by jayson.knight on Thu 9th Nov 2006 00:09 in reply to "RE: The real heart of it"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

Firefox and Evolution, sure. Comparing OO.o to MSO? Surely you jest.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: The real heart of it
by Blikkie on Thu 9th Nov 2006 09:16 in reply to "RE: The real heart of it"
Blikkie 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.

Reply Parent Score: 1