Why don't companies consider open source more?

[ViviTheMage]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Yea you save on software but how much do you lose on support/training, lost customers, etc...

We Fed Gov upgraded our software so we can exchange documnets with others that we interact with. So we got new office yet I don;t think anybody uses any of the new features but me and very few others.


There are pros and cons to both.

psssssh, we still have 2000 stuff here, you can get plug ins to make the fancy docx stuff work with it .

 

[shortylickens]

A linux guy gets paid just as much as a windows guy.
If everyone moved to linux then the linux IT guys would request mad money and put you out of business.
OR....
You could spend a billion dollars retraining all your windows people.

 

[Linflas]

Pick a simple application and try to install it under Linux. View this process as the average user, not as an IT enthusiast but as the average run of the mill user. They have the OS install part down almost as smooth as a standard MS OS install but that is pretty much where the simplicity ends.

 

[Fritzo]

Open source requires a revenue stream from other sources to support it. A strong economy can give strong ad based revenue, but with a poor economy there aren't going to be strong ad sales. Venture captial is not going to be available these days for support, therefore, direct sales is the safest way to go.

I think this thread should be renamed "Why can't I get stuff I want for free?"

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: Crusty
Paying for something that works and praying that something works are far from being equal, especially when it comes to mission critical services.

And having an office full of employees sitting around on their hands when it doesn't work and your IT people are trying to figure it out is not at all productive.

We have sales between $250,000-$300,000 a day so $50k in annual support is chump change compared to one day of lost sales.

 

[brandonbull]

You have to consider what you plan on using the Open source/Free software for.
I work at a place now that uses Free/Open Source for a commercial application it developed and they are paying the price in hidden costs.

 

[Platypus]

Ignorance really.

I'm a UNIX/SAN Engineer so obviously everywhere I've worked is a UNIX shop in some capacity. I've worked at a lot of large companies including Fortune 100, etc and for the most part all of the mission critical servers run some form of UNIX. It's almost always a very supported format though, Solaris, AIX, RHEL, etc. The smaller the shop, the more chance you'll find another smaller flavor. I can't speak for all companies but it comes down to a few things. 1) Finding people who know what they're doing to support it and 2) a warm/fuzzy for management that if there is a problem, there is a company to call to get support for it. Every shop I've been in has been a mix of OS's, it's really about using the right tool for the right job. I would say the bigger chunk of the 'why?' comes from the fact that finding good UNIX/Linux engineers is tough. I've worked with some people who thought they knew what they were doing but just honestly don't. These people are weeded out quickly enough.

I think it's sort of cavalier to say that companies don't consider open source software more because in my experience they do.. it's just about using it in the right places and for the right reasons. Obviously every place is different but open source is in a lot more companies than you'd think.

It also comes down to the fact that open source does not mean free. Yes you pay a lot less because you get the software for free but the support and the employees to support it cost money. It's considerably less than Microsoft but it's certainly not free.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JS80
From a finance perspective nickel and diming on capex won't save heads nor will it make much of a difference on the financial statements. Performance is generally measured through EBITDA, which excludes depreciation of software/hardware. These days it's headcount that is the primary cost savings/driver.

And with something like software/hardware where the capex is only a small portion of the TCO, when viewed as a whole open source might save you 10% and has to balanced against the aggravation factor. Also consider that invariably there will be lost productivity due to retraining, reprogramming, reintegrating. Change software platforms is never free, even when the software is free.

Sometimes it's simply the path of least resistance. I'm currently working with my internal staff and a VAR to determine what direction to head with our datacenter. I'm pretty well set on virtualization with ESX and VDI, but when considering whether to shell out for the latest version of Windows, Office, Exchange, etc. vs Linux, OO, Google Apps, I have to consider the cost of dealing with legacy data and training. Sticking with MS isn't cheap, but then neither is open source.

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: duragezic

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: duragezic
Where I work we have a place to submit questions that get answered by a leadership person and posted. One of the recent ones was asking why not switch to OpenOffice. It mainly was due to compatibility and learning curve.

Personally I'm glad because I hate it. I am impressed and love what open source people do, but I just can't deal with OpenOffice, especially for Excel which we use heavily of course.

But for other programs, I wouldn't mind a OO alternative. Although I can't really think of any that could replace anything else I use at work because most of the major programs I use aren't going to have a OO alternative. I do think we use Dia though because of the cost of Visio licenses. As a software guy, I need a diff tool. I'm sure there's OO ones out there but from the few free ones I've used, Beyond Compare is far superior.

But yeah, commercial products cost, a lot. We use MATLAB a lot here and I've heard some numbers thrown around of what these things cost and it is insane. And there are so many components to it like Simulink, RTW, etc. Plus a 25% yearly support/maintenance fee on every license. :Q

Like ms-ofc 2003 vs. ms-ofc 2007?

Haha I guess I'm hypocritical there because I talk about the learning curve with OO but can't get by people who don't pick up Office 2007 pretty easily. I really like what they did with 2007 and had no problem picking up almost everything I used commonly. One of the reasons we don't have 2007 at work is this.

I don't often have the need to use ms-ofc. I needed it a few months ago at a relative's house where the version was 2007 and spent an inordinate amount of time finding the functions I "knew" were there. I'm open to the possibility that it might be better given time - something I didn't have. On the surface, like vista, it seems that some things were changed just because they could be.

 

[lxskllr]

I think open source is better suited to non profits, and small companies with fairly simple needs. There's no reason to spend What MS wants for a server on a simple file server servicing 15 workstations. Non profits should be cutting costs in any way possible, that also applies to schools.

 

[JasonCoder]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
I think open source is better suited to non profits, and small companies with fairly simple needs. There's no reason to spend What MS wants for a server on a simple file server servicing 15 workstations. Non profits should be cutting costs in any way possible, that also applies to schools.

msft has very decent pricing on small business server. when it comes to educational purposes msft is deliriously decent on pricing. At OSU you used to be able to get an MSDN Universal equivalent subscription for around $1-200 a quarter. For the institution itself prices are very reasonable as well. msft wants its software in front of as many students as possible.

 

[vi edit]

Originally posted by: lxskllr
I think open source is better suited to non profits, and small companies with fairly simple needs. There's no reason to spend What MS wants for a server on a simple file server servicing 15 workstations. Non profits should be cutting costs in any way possible, that also applies to schools.

Non-profits practically have MS software given to them. Small companies have some competitive "all-in-one" server products available to them through MS.

It's the entry level midsize companies that have lots of employees needing CALS but not a lot of budget available for IT that it makes a lot of sense for. But with those companies you also likely don't have a dedicated IT staff to help support it either. So it falls back on end users. So a widely known MS product is just easier.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: JasonCoder


msft has very decent pricing on small business server. when it comes to educational purposes msft is deliriously decent on pricing. At OSU you used to be able to get an MSDN Universal equivalent subscription for around $1-200 a quarter. For the institution itself prices are very reasonable as well. msft wants its software in front of as many students as possible.

My experience is pretty limited. I was just going by the engineering company I used to work for. Our server setup was pretty expensive for what it did, but I didn't have any input on it's implementation.

For the schools, I was thinking more below the college level, and for the actual infrastructure, not so much learning and classes. My daughter goes to a small Christian school, and they would be perfect for an open source solution. Maybe it's all cheaper than I think, but several thousand dollars can go along way when you don't have much to work with in the first place.

 

[vi edit]

At the time I was managing a small business IT setup, Small Business Server was about $700 and it included the server OS, Exchange, SQL, and a few other little things.

CAL's were around $50 a pop. That's pretty reasonable for what you got.

One drawback was that you were limited to 50 users at the time. But for a small business that should be plenty.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: vi edit
At the time I was managing a small business IT setup, Small Business Server was about $700 and it included the server OS, Exchange, SQL, and a few other little things.

CAL's were around $50 a pop. That's pretty reasonable for what you got.

One drawback was that you were limited to 50 users at the time. But for a small business that should be plenty.

SBS is the worse especially for a company that could potentially grow fast, though for a company that will stay it's size, it's a great solution and anybody could set it up.

Though, once you're "hooked" to Windows it's hard to turn back as everything is setup, and when you upgrade to a "real" setup that's where you get raped.

Also the support thing is silly I find, that's what IT is paid for, how often does one actually call Microsoft about a problem that is specific to the environment? And if you did they probably wont be able to help you much if there's anything "abnormal".

For example we just upgraded to Impax 6 which uses AD for authentication. At random we'll get users that wont authenticate. If we actually called MS on that they'd probably tell us it's a problem with Impax that is specific to our environment, because people can log in fine through Windows. The PACS guys will then tell us it's an AD problem. It could be a problem with both, or it could be a problem with one of them. Either way, it's our job as IT people to figure it out, and what's what we're paid for.

Also lot of vendors will totally refuse support if you are using their software under a virtualized environment. I think MS actually does support it (you probably have to pay more) but lot of companies wont. So no matter what, Open Source/Free or not, you, as an IT person, have to support it.

Now as for hardware support that's different. I completly agree with companies buying Dell/IBM/other brand servers as opposed to building them or getting deals off tigerdirect. If a drive fails, or a backplane fails, you actually get someone sned the part or even come onsite if required, not to mention they'll have the parts, etc. Dell is actually very good for support of servers and workstations. If I was starting a company from scratch I'd personally go with Dell.

 

[spikespiegal]

Either way, it's our job as IT people to figure it out, and what's what we're paid for.

Knee jerk reaction is it's a kerberos ticket thing that's being fouled up. If I'm right, I'll send you a bill If I'm wrong, I buy you a beer.

I have mixed thoughts on SBS. First, my respect for the 2003 and newer versions which are extremely robust and offer a wicked host of tools and applications that the office bubble-gum chewing receptionist can be taught to support. Open Source pundits hate this cruel reality because most of them need the support contracts to pay off their student loans :evil:

However, my pragmatic side is feels that any small business that wants to host AD and an Exchange Server are morons because of potential security and data protection. Pay for a fast wire, and have it hosted off site by somebody that knows what they are doing and spend your time running your business.

As for Open Office, again, the people pushing it don't see both sides. I personally *love* Open Office and use it exclusively at home. However, I've worked in several enterprise environments where every single bell and whistle of Office 2003/2007 were used extensively by hundreds of clients. Much to the dismay and ulcers of IT staff, Software needs to assist the work habits of the people using it, not the other way around. MS Office, especially the last variant, might be bloated beyond comprehension, but that's what users want. A classic example of this is how Outlook is used as the central data storage app for enterprise users even though it drives the IT staff nuts trying to accommodate exponentially growing PST/OST files and mail boxes. As I've said before, nobody handles inefficient software bloat and annoying user habits with more enthusiam than Microsoft :laugh:

 

[Red Squirrel]

That's a good point on office though, I do see it a lot. Macros and all that stuff. IMO I'm no fan of application specific scripting just because it puts all your dependability on that single app. If it changes, breaks, get's upgraded or w/e you run into all sorts of issues. Though most people don't see it this way and just want it to work.

nd yes as IT it drives me nuts how people think the mail server is a central data dump. omg some mailboxes are GIGs. how can you have that much email? lol

 

[sourceninja]

I'm really surprised taking the time to read though this whole thread that people seem to think open source = no support.

Seriously? People think this?
Linux - tons of commercial support options
Open office - Sun commercial support
mysql - commercial support
postgreSQL - commercial support
moodle - commercial support
apache - commercial support
php - commercial support

I can go on and on. There is high quality commercial support for every good open source project.

 

[blahblah99]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel
I sometimes mention, usually as a joke "you know to save money why don't we switch to open office?". Managers and non pro linux/open source people will usually get very defensive and start saying how it would be imcompatible with macros, vb script and other microsoft based crap.

Sure, I see their point. But look at how much money a 500+ pc environment would save, just by switching to Open Office alone (not even considering Linux at this point).

It would take some adjusting to do and can't be done at the blink of an eye, but in some environments such as schools, I really think the trouble would be worth it. I find microsoft (and other companies) licensing is a real joke. Not only do they rape you, but they make it harder to get raped. Instead of saying "we need 1 grand per PC" they'll start adding all these other things "well that's just for 1 user, for more users you need to pay this much, for this type of environment, you pay extra" and list goes on. It gets worse when you get into server environments.

Take MS exchange for example, you PAID for it, PAID for the server OS, yet you still have to PAY MORE for cals, mailbox licenses and so on. Every direction you turn, you have to pay more. Going with a Linux mail server and adding some custom code for collaboration will be more work at first, but pay off and save the company Millions per year. Start adding up all the crazy prices companies pay for software and open source just seems more worth it.

It's also easier to get support on a well known app, then some propitiatory app. (like for those that use weird apps that nobody has ever heard of).

Instead, companies rather lay off a bunch of people, then review their ridiculous spending on stuff they could get for free. I find out pricing on stuff where I work and it just shocks me that they are willing to pay that much money. Some support contracts go for over 50k a year not counting the product itself, yet that number is probably used once.

What you save in open source software you pay for in hiring employees to implement and support it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: blahblah99
What you save in open source software you pay for in hiring employees to implement and support it.

Which is the whole point. Purchase price is just one part of TCO. What's the difference if you have to pay $40K/yr for software and $60K/yr for a monkey to run it or get the software free but have to pay a highly skilled admin to run it for $100K/yr?

 

[seemingly random]

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I'm really surprised taking the time to read though this whole thread that people seem to think open source = no support.
...

I think it's like religion. When it's been drummed into you (superstitious/supernatural beliefs : pay upfront for s/w), it's difficult to change the mindset.

Never mind that the reason people are reading this is undoubtedly made possible by a linux server somewhere.

 

[JasonCoder]

Originally posted by: seemingly random

Originally posted by: sourceninja
I'm really surprised taking the time to read though this whole thread that people seem to think open source = no support.
...

I think it's like religion. When it's been drummed into you (superstitious/supernatural beliefs : pay upfront for s/w), it's difficult to change the mindset.

Never mind that the reason people are reading this is undoubtedly made possible by a linux server somewhere.

Yeah, probably running a root server somewhere that does some simple task that is automated to the hilt. As for this forum, I believe Anand runs a couple of SQL Servers and the site is a .net app.

I doubt your average small-medium business owner is aware of OSS as it isn't marketed.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: blahblah99
What you save in open source software you pay for in hiring employees to implement and support it.

And you don't need to pay people to support expensive crappy apps? (not implying all of them are crappy, but some are)

Also I often hear the argument "but what if something fails?" And? so you fix it the same way you would if something in windows would fail. Any software can fail or have problems. Just have to deal with it like anything else.

 

[SampSon]

Use the right tool for the job.

 

[OogyWaWa]

the TCO of open source is not always cheaper. you have to consider all the factors, not just upfront software cost