Open Source More Expensive Says MS Report 465
doperative writes "Much conventional wisdom about programs written by volunteers is wrong. The authors took money for research from Microsoft, long the archenemy of the open-source movement — although they assure readers that the funds came with no strings attached. Free programs are not always cheaper. To be sure, the upfront cost of proprietary software is higher (although open-source programs are not always free). But companies that use such programs spend more on such things as learning to use them and making them work with other software"
My psychic prediction (Score:3, Insightful)
I predict that this report will be met with much skepticism on /.
I also predict that I will make the argument that open source really *isn't* always all it's cracked up to be--and be shouted down by many, many voices
Yeah...suuuurrrrre.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The authors took money for research from Microsoft, long the arch- enemy of the open-source movement-- although they assure readers that the funds came with no strings attached
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain! THERE IS ONLY ZUUL!
making them work with other software (Score:5, Insightful)
TCO Fud (Score:4, Insightful)
disingenuous? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My psychic prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument is valid for certain cases. That said, the large majority of work I do has the same operational cost regardless of where we get the software. We still have to learn how it works, and integrate it into the system we're deploying.
A proprietary solution has merit if you don't have technical people and you depend on an external company. Take whatever solution they provide.
But out in the technology world proper, these things cost more upfront and probably take just as much work to integrate.
Re:"Took money from Microsoft" = FAIL (Score:2, Insightful)
Indeed.
I love the supposition that closed source stuff is all "easier to learn" which isn't the case any more than open source stuff is all the opposite.
Learning to use them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny. My wife's office recently upgraded from Office 2003 to a more recent release.
How do I know?
The first day it was on her computer, the conversation at home went something like this:
Her: "What the FUCK! The fuckheads in IT gave some new bullshit version of Word on my fucking computer and it is completely fucking different. I spent like a fucking hour trying to find how to do "X". Where the fuck are my fucking toolbars? There is this new bullshit toolbar that is completely useless." ... continue 15 minute profanity laced tirade...
Me: "It's called the 'ribbon'."
Her: "Whatever the fuck it is called it is fucking stupid. And what the fuck is this 'docx' bullshit?"
Companies spend more money on learning how to use open source? The three-year quota on profanity that my wife used up in a day says otherwise.
Re:My psychic prediction (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:My psychic prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Is there some particular reason you trust any statement on open source that comes from Microsoft, considering it's long track record of animosity?
At any rate, it depends on the software in question, much like proprietary closed source software. In some cases with some products one side has an advantage, and in some cases the other side has an advantage. Working in a world where I deal with both closed source software (Windows+AD+Exchange) and open source software (LAMP servers, Samba) I have to say that there are aspects of both that cause me grief, and aspects of both that work well. At the end of the day, my level of competence is sufficient that issues of long-term licensing costs, particularly as far as upgrading to new versions goes, that in some areas open source clearly wins the day. However, in other regards, Active Directory, particular as far as Group Policies goes, does indeed have a clear management advantage that cannot easily be duplicated in open source. So I'd say, at the end of the day, large generalized statements like "open source more expensive" is clearly an invalid statement.
And I'll return to the fact that Microsoft paid for this. Microsoft's long history in regards to open source means I pretty much ignore anything Redmond or its mouthpieces have to say on it. I wouldn't ask a Microsoft rep or anyone given a nickel by Microsoft about the costs of software.
Re:My psychic prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if monetary costs are equal, F/OSS stuff may be a better business decision for the community.
Example - A college can pay $75k per year for an Angel or Blackboard license, and host it locally (or contract the hosting out to Angel/BB). Or, they can adopt a F/OSS solution like Sakai, and instead of paying $75k/yr to a corporation outside of the area they can pay $75k/yr for a programmer to maintain and enhance Sakai for their needs. Dollar costs are the same. However, by hiring the programmer, that improves the local economy and keeps that money local, as opposed to sending it out of area/out of state/etc.
Re:Out of context (Score:5, Insightful)
To be perfectly fair, almost no one is going to read the article for a topic like this, and the editors know it. They can just pick any study that MS had any financial input in, and that favors them (in any degree), publish a link, make sweeping claims, so they are simply feeding the fanboys and trolls. These types of articles are never insightful anyway, and most users here have better information about this topic than the authors of the articles. No one on the planet has ever switched platforms because of the contents of these types of articles.
Re:Turning the table (Score:5, Insightful)
And knowing open source also means that you know how to fix it when it breaks.
If Microsoft software breaks all you can do is pray and hope that it will be resolved in a future bug fix. A call to M$ support renders you a long wait on the phone where you can't do anything and finally a question if you have tried to reinstall, and if you have done it and have any kind of custom software in the vicinity then they can't help you.
So either you are putting in some hours to get in control or you give up control to Microsoft.
Re:My psychic prediction (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's look at this from a different viewpoint: If you are already using open source and have already put in place all the systems, scripts, custom software, etc. to run your business, how much more expensive would it be to switch to a Microsoft solution with all the same functionality?
Re:Turning the table (Score:3, Insightful)
Once you code a solution to your defect, the proposed fix still has to be submitted, and may not be accepted by the developers. This could continue on for months, or even years of never implementing your fix. The onus is on your org, then, to repeatedly merge in changes, recompile, retest, and re-release your forked code base.
Again, this is all on the assumption you have the resources/knowledge to actually code a solution. Which many organziations do not.
Re:Turning the table (Score:5, Insightful)
And knowing open source also means that you know how to fix it when it breaks.
First off, I am a professional software developer/entrepreneur and a big supporter of open source software and freedom. But the argument you bring here is the worst argument *for* open source. I work with Evolution in my professional life and it crashes on me quite often. (Not often enough to replace it, so I will continue using it.) Even that I am a programmer, I do not know how to fix it. Getting to know a moderately complex piece of software takes a lot of time and effort (and thus money), that I rather spend on working for my customers. They actually pay me for my work.
Otoh, I also purchased Novell Groupwise, combined with SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop (I thought it was a viable commercial Linux solution), and it is a lot worse than any do-it-yourself packages, so I guess closed source sucks too. Just in a different way.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll say it again (Score:4, Insightful)
And this is better than "no means to proceed" how? (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, having found a problem, and then found a solution you have to maintain or share that solution. The horrors!
I non-open code you have the choice of paying potentially millions of dollars to get a fix from the vendor, and having paid that sum, you receive one fix once, with no promise that your fix will become part of the product line's subsequent release. So when that subsequent release is made and it _doesn't_ have your fix, you get to pay all that money _again_ even though they already know the problem and solution. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
With open source you don't have to "fork" just to retain the patch and reapply it, usually with virtually no effort since, if someone is working on the code you patched, they likely used your fix, something like your fix, or didn't touch the lines you patched in any meaningful way.
I have had a kernel patch to "smarten up" termios for years. I submitted it and it was rejected for reasons like "we are about to change that code anyway" and "someone might have written code that _uses_ the fact that you can end up blocking on a one-byte read, waiting for one byte to be received, despite the fact that there is more than one byte in the buffer".
With every subsequent release of the kernel I just apply the patch and move on. I didn't "fork the kernel" etc. Nothing ever so daunting.
It is an obvious truth that exploring an option and making use of an opportunity is _always_ more effort and "clear expense" then just throwing up ones hands and living with no choice in the matter.
The costs of surrender are always hidden, prorated, long term. [Ask the French, their defense against Germany was sabatoged, as it always was, by Belgium's habit of buckling like a belt when threatened no matter how much the promised to do their part as a key point in the defense of europe. Nobody blames Belgium for being the useless twits they always are, but to this day France takes a load of shit for their surrender once their entire north flank went for strudel.]
Agree with Microsoft? I suggest you read up on "Plays4Sure"... and every single "microsoft preferred partner" in history.