Charity Shuns Open Source Code

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.

Linux works better than charity

[rogtioko]

First of all, I don't see how a person could want a good example as long as that person is ruled by a boss (Microsoft bosses for ex). A person should not have a boss. Instead a person should, if possible, allow somebody to pay you to 'do want you want to do' because he or she wants to see what you do: take 'donations' (meaning payment for your work really).

                O.k. if a person can attempt that first, the person should also 'be able' to and 'optionally offer' (person's choice) his or her own resource (meaning a creation made by that person) to another, who will use (note* the person accepting the resource should not modify it unless personally wanted and it is designed to be optionally modified; the person accepting the resource should mandatorily modify it if it is designed to be modified) it to do something wanted personally, because the person able to offer wants to see what another will do.

Note* I am not saying "you should" (instead saying "a person should" because I'm only attempting to set an ideal example. A person has to make his or her own decisions.

Bah! TCO

[mpapet]

At this point, it is reasonable to assume most organizations that do not want to rely on their IT employee talent or skill will choose Microsoft.

TCO, like most statistics is skewed toward the biases of the people putting the numbers together listening carefully and intentionally including the biases of their employer. In this case the TCO will never come out in favor of Linux because of the organization's biases.

I think this is a good thing though. The more biased and irrational the PHB the more likely they will listen to Dvorak/Microsoft craziness. The more that hyperbole is abused the better for Linux.

Meanwhile, the more rational PHB will look at the tools available for the job and decide which is best. In increasingly more and more situations, Linux will be the better tool.

what a tool

[joe 155]

""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"...

Because of course its better to have JUST the black hats looking at the code... they'd never steal from a charity would they? I'm sure we can trust criminals. This is idiocy of the highest order. And then he goes on to say;

"But one of the things that we find is that Microsoft is viewed as the big, bad organisation - 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 licence, compared to what a major bank might pay."

He previously said that there were training costs because the staff didn't know how to use non-MS software, why can't he see that they do this as a way of enforcing their hegemony so that people HAVE to use their software. Freedom might not be free, but it is important

Foundational software

[Micah]

I know of other nonprofits that are shunning open source for the entire Microsoft stack for one reason -- "foundational software." This software handles all their donations, contacts, personnel, etc., and binds it tightly to the M$ stack.

This is something we in the Free Software community need to address, soon, assuming we want to help nonprofits standardize on open code. Does anyone know if a viable solution that currently exists and would not be scorned by thier leadership?

I'd like to see something that does the same things, but runs on Linux and has ties to OpenOffice, Firefox, PostgreSQL, etc.

It is frustrating

[MrScary]

I work for a Catholic school and trying to get the Archdiocese to switch over to OSS is like pulling teeth. You would think that with as tight as school budgets are that saving $40 for a wordprocessor would make them jump but they just will not do it. Then you look at some of the overpriced budget and database software they use and you really start to shake you head.

from the article..

[radarsat1]

"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.

I really don't follow this logic..
That doesn't make any sense.

He seems to think that if you are using open source software, it means your data server's admin account is available to anyone?

They run Linux on their webservers

[tvm662]

According to Netcraft [netcraft.com] they run their website on Red Hat servers. They moved from FreeBSD to Linux in September 2005. This might just be a hosting company change, but the fact the netblock is registed to them makes me think that they might run the servers themselves.

Seems a bit strange to me.

Tom.

Misses the idea?

[Anonymous Freak]

...he seems to miss totally the idea of open code -- confusing code with data.

Of course he does. He's not a geek. Yesterday I convinced one of my customers to use OpenOffice.org over Microsoft Office. The only selling point she heard? "Free". Not "Free as in speech", but "no cost to acquire." And her next door neighbor is Ward Cunningham (this [wikipedia.org] one, not this [wikipedia.org] one,) yet she still didn't quite get "open source". The average person doesn't understand open source, nor do they care enough to learn. It's just the way the world works.

It is disappointing that Linux couldn't make more inroads at a nonprofit, but as the article says, it's much easier to find cheap Microsoft help than Linux help. (For example, my on-site consulting company charges 50% more for Linux work than for Microsoft work; simply because we only have two of us that know Linux.)

I believe you ..

[rs232]

"I work in a mostly Linux shop. It is the only solution for our server farms", InsaneProcessor

"We have to hire both linux and windows IT people", InsaneProcessor

Is it possible for someone to have both linux and windows skills in the one brain?

"Linux is next to worthless on our desktops", InsaneProcessor

What version? Why are you running both desktops. As an IT services company what exactly is difficult about the 'Linux' Gui?

"Every time a new version or upgrad comes out (new hardware isn't supported by older versions) too many things become broken", InsaneProcessor

What compels you to upgrade? As a professional IT shop I would imagine you set your own upgrade agenda. Why do you install the 'old' version on new hardware when as you say, there is a newer upgrade available. What kind of a shop are you running there?

"Windows is far cheaper to maintain and support", InsaneProcessor

According to this MS sponcered report [vnunet.com] from 2002 it takes three people to support a Linux server and two for Windows. Anyone who know anything about Unix knows this to be absolute nonsence. An average ISP need hire at most two Linux sys admins regardless of the number of machines. Once some automated scripts are in place baring a hardware failure, there is minimal maintenence.

X-Fud-Status: Yes, score=7.0 required=2.5 .. morons, worthless, upgrad, broken, troublshooting, licenses, zeolots+pretend typos

InsaneProcessor (869563)
was Morons that miss the point completely (Score:1, FUD)
Morons that miss the point completely [slashdot.org]

Re:pence in the pound

[jwsd]

If you had actually read Microsoft's 10-K, you would have seen that they received the vast majority of their revenue from OEM, Enterprise, government, and other large customers.

You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours.

[Pinback]

Charities need money. Money comes almost exclusively from closed source companies.

You don't spit in the face of those closed source companies, and put down their product. You smile, but the reduced cost copies, and say good things about closed source companies.

Anyone grumpy about a slashdot story is not in your target audience anyway.