5 ms·

There is still real cost to using FOSS software. Training employees. Maintaining the environment by addressing bugs. Securing the environment. Plus compatib

There is still real cost to using FOSS software. Training employees. Maintaining the environment by addressing bugs. Securing the environment. Plus compatibility with proprietary formats isn’t 100%. I’d still choose FOSS for many kinds of environments but it’s not free.

justinjlynn 9y ago
All of those enumerated costs apply equally to proprietary software as well.
- godzillabrennus 9y ago
  There is a reason Microsoft practically gives away their software to schools. They have an amazing ecosystem.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Well, they certainly have a number of products, but I fail to see how their giving away licences has anything to do with reducing those ongoing operational costs? Not only that then, "first one's free" certainly applies: I would hate to see the renewal costs they charge!
    - thaumasiotes 9y ago
      > I fail to see how their giving away licences has anything to do with reducing those ongoing operational costs? Not only that then, "first one's free" certainly applies: I would hate to see the renewal costs they charge! Your parent comment is referring to the following model: 1. Microsoft provides free or nearly-free licenses to schools. They don't charge the schools for software now, and they won't charge the schools for software later, because that would defeat the purpose of giving the software away. Renewal fees are not an issue anyone sane would worry about. 2. Incoming government workers already know how to use Microsoft software, because that's what they used at school. They complain if they're supposed to use something else.
      - justinjlynn 9y ago
        > Renewal fees are not an issue anyone sane would worry about Right. The presence of that threat is enough to discourage looking for alternatives. "we hear you've been looking into Linux and teaching Python instead of C#/.Net next year... sure would be a shame..."
        thaumasiotes 9y ago
        You seem to be confusing the software the school uses internally with the software it makes available to students.
        justinjlynn 9y ago
        I'm not confusing anything.
- notatoad 9y ago
  they apply to proprietary software. they most certainly do not apply equally. it's a lot easier (and therefore cheaper) to find staff to support windows than it is to find staff to support linux.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    I would certainly be interested in some concrete numbers.
- sokoloff 9y ago
  For market dominating software, those costs can be reduced by sites like stackoverflow, youtube, and blog posts/samples. Try searching for how to perform an arbitrary function in Word or Excel. Hundreds of hits, and probably 25% will solve your problem. Try the same search for Google Sheets or OpenOffice. Crickets was always my experience.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Of course, but do notice that with open source software, if one has the motivation, it's all right there in black and white code. Doesn't work for you? change it. Don't know what's going on? It's because you haven't looked - you're not prevented from doing anything. That's assuming you can't get in touch with the person who wrote it. Which you probably could quite easily do.
    - sokoloff 9y ago
      Yes; I've sent patches to open source projects before. When I'm in "accomplish a task using a spreadsheet" or "write a document/prepare a presentation" mode, I'm probably not going to be inclined (nor have time) to go rathole on changing the source to the office application, recompiling, testing, doing my original task, and submitting a patch.
squarefoot 9y ago
"Training employees." There was a time, many moons ago, when secretaries with zero IT knowledge learnt Wordstar key sequences and got very productive using the software; now keyboard usage is considered a highly technical skill among IT workers and rocket science among casual users. It's just a market driven untraining; everyone can learn to understand and use FOSS, but it needs strong motivation.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  You've got to take the context into account. At that time, the alternatives were things like typewriters that were even more labor-intensive to use. They were learning a tool that made them more productive, and therefore more valuable. Nowadays, Microsoft's Office suite was, is, and, all indicators suggest, will continue to be a bigger productivity multiplier than any of its competitors. For people who primarily work in office software, choosing something like it is the sensible default for any company whose primary motive is profit. Sure, it costs money, but the cost of the software is tiny compared to a skilled office worker's salary - small enough that I'd estimate it wouldn't have to make someone even 1% more productive to justify the retail price, let alone what it costs if you qualify for any sort of volume discount. There are other motivating factors that could come into play, sure. But if we're talking places that have to pay for their labor (i.e., not home use) and make heavy use of office software, going with the one with the lowest TCO is a sensible default.
  - squarefoot 9y ago
    True, completely different context, but I was referring to the common belief that using something non mainstream, or train someone to, is that hard. If we continue walking this path we soon will end up with programmers using only the easiest development system around, something we are already experiencing with hardware that gets faster every year but software doesn't. To me letting the market decide what tools one has to use is very bad in the long term.
lucb1e 9y ago
> Training employees. Same as with MS Office. I remember me and my parents doing trainings in MS Office, which wasn't exactly free either. > Securing the environment. Same as with MS Office. > compatibility with proprietary formats isn't 100%. MS Office' compatibility with open formats isn't 100%. > Maintaining the environment by addressing bugs. That is a win for MS Office. Now offset that against the license cost and vendor lock-in risk. I know we conclude the same, namely choosing FOSS for many kinds of environments, but your post sounds a lot like there are many costs unique to FOSS while in reality there are lots of costs involved with both options.
- xvilka 9y ago
  MS Office compatbility with their own formats (older versions usually) is not 100% either.

justinjlynn 9y ago

All of those enumerated costs apply equally to proprietary software as well.

godzillabrennus 9y ago
There is a reason Microsoft practically gives away their software to schools. They have an amazing ecosystem.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Well, they certainly have a number of products, but I fail to see how their giving away licences has anything to do with reducing those ongoing operational costs? Not only that then, "first one's free" certainly applies: I would hate to see the renewal costs they charge!
  - thaumasiotes 9y ago
    > I fail to see how their giving away licences has anything to do with reducing those ongoing operational costs? Not only that then, "first one's free" certainly applies: I would hate to see the renewal costs they charge! Your parent comment is referring to the following model: 1. Microsoft provides free or nearly-free licenses to schools. They don't charge the schools for software now, and they won't charge the schools for software later, because that would defeat the purpose of giving the software away. Renewal fees are not an issue anyone sane would worry about. 2. Incoming government workers already know how to use Microsoft software, because that's what they used at school. They complain if they're supposed to use something else.
    - justinjlynn 9y ago
      > Renewal fees are not an issue anyone sane would worry about Right. The presence of that threat is enough to discourage looking for alternatives. "we hear you've been looking into Linux and teaching Python instead of C#/.Net next year... sure would be a shame..."
      - thaumasiotes 9y ago
        You seem to be confusing the software the school uses internally with the software it makes available to students.
        justinjlynn 9y ago
        I'm not confusing anything.
notatoad 9y ago
they apply to proprietary software. they most certainly do not apply equally. it's a lot easier (and therefore cheaper) to find staff to support windows than it is to find staff to support linux.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  I would certainly be interested in some concrete numbers.
sokoloff 9y ago
For market dominating software, those costs can be reduced by sites like stackoverflow, youtube, and blog posts/samples. Try searching for how to perform an arbitrary function in Word or Excel. Hundreds of hits, and probably 25% will solve your problem. Try the same search for Google Sheets or OpenOffice. Crickets was always my experience.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Of course, but do notice that with open source software, if one has the motivation, it's all right there in black and white code. Doesn't work for you? change it. Don't know what's going on? It's because you haven't looked - you're not prevented from doing anything. That's assuming you can't get in touch with the person who wrote it. Which you probably could quite easily do.
  - sokoloff 9y ago
    Yes; I've sent patches to open source projects before. When I'm in "accomplish a task using a spreadsheet" or "write a document/prepare a presentation" mode, I'm probably not going to be inclined (nor have time) to go rathole on changing the source to the office application, recompiling, testing, doing my original task, and submitting a patch.

squarefoot 9y ago

"Training employees." There was a time, many moons ago, when secretaries with zero IT knowledge learnt Wordstar key sequences and got very productive using the software; now keyboard usage is considered a highly technical skill among IT workers and rocket science among casual users. It's just a market driven untraining; everyone can learn to understand and use FOSS, but it needs strong motivation.

bunderbunder 9y ago
You've got to take the context into account. At that time, the alternatives were things like typewriters that were even more labor-intensive to use. They were learning a tool that made them more productive, and therefore more valuable. Nowadays, Microsoft's Office suite was, is, and, all indicators suggest, will continue to be a bigger productivity multiplier than any of its competitors. For people who primarily work in office software, choosing something like it is the sensible default for any company whose primary motive is profit. Sure, it costs money, but the cost of the software is tiny compared to a skilled office worker's salary - small enough that I'd estimate it wouldn't have to make someone even 1% more productive to justify the retail price, let alone what it costs if you qualify for any sort of volume discount. There are other motivating factors that could come into play, sure. But if we're talking places that have to pay for their labor (i.e., not home use) and make heavy use of office software, going with the one with the lowest TCO is a sensible default.
- squarefoot 9y ago
  True, completely different context, but I was referring to the common belief that using something non mainstream, or train someone to, is that hard. If we continue walking this path we soon will end up with programmers using only the easiest development system around, something we are already experiencing with hardware that gets faster every year but software doesn't. To me letting the market decide what tools one has to use is very bad in the long term.

lucb1e 9y ago

> Training employees. Same as with MS Office. I remember me and my parents doing trainings in MS Office, which wasn't exactly free either. > Securing the environment. Same as with MS Office. > compatibility with proprietary formats isn't 100%. MS Office' compatibility with open formats isn't 100%. > Maintaining the environment by addressing bugs. That is a win for MS Office. Now offset that against the license cost and vendor lock-in risk. I know we conclude the same, namely choosing FOSS for many kinds of environments, but your post sounds a lot like there are many costs unique to FOSS while in reality there are lots of costs involved with both options.

xvilka 9y ago
MS Office compatbility with their own formats (older versions usually) is not 100% either.