Charity Shuns Open Source Code 115
brown-eyed slug writes, "The BBC has an article explaining Christian Aid's decision to use Microsoft software in preference to Linux. It re-opens the classic debate about the total cost of ownership, highlighting the wider availability of Microsoft skills, as well as the beneficial pricing policy of the Seattle giant. From the article: '...one of the things that we find is that Microsoft is viewed as the big, bad organization — but they've actually got some good corporate social responsibility. If you're a charity or an educational institution, you pay pence in the pound for the license, compared to what a major bank might pay.'" While the Christian Aid spokesman makes some good points, he seems to miss totally the idea of open code — confusing code with data.
Let us pray (Score:5, Funny)
re-opening the classic debate (Score:5, Funny)
sczimme [slashdot.org] said [slashdot.org]: I must have missed something: when was this debate closed?
Oh man, you did NOT miss that thread!!! we resolved the TCO debate, Mac v Linux, Security models, and even Emacs vs Vi.
Re: A Good but goofy point (Score:4, Funny)
Thats why I am an advocate of free hardware.
Revelations (Score:3, Funny)
woolley-jumpered amateurs (Score:2, Funny)
Well you sure proved wrong a misconception I never made.
*slaps suspenders*
Keep your pious paws off my code (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, would rather see spammers using my free software than a religious org of any flavor (spammers, in my opinion, have a less detrimental effect on society in the long term and their forms of torture are at least tolerable... plus they've yet to start a war or blow stuff up).
I'd be much more tolerant if these charities weren't just public relations stunts--I mean, unless "Christian's Aid" is really to help some guy called Chris...