NEWS Government at all levels is stampeding towards open source software but should not be blinded by popular myths, say analysts.
And how the public sector uses open source will probably determine its future, according to a report from Ovum.
Laurent Laval, senior analyst at Ovum, said: "It is important to remember that open source is not free of cost – it is free to use and share. Its use must be part of a strategy as it can be costly in terms of migration, integration, training and systems management."
Laval takes a negative view of organisations which hope to develop their own idiosyncratic systems. "Public sector bodies should be addressing themselves to the needs of their users – not re-inventing the wheel. Creating your own stuff is not a smart idea unless there is a very, very specific need – that is highly unlikely."
And, when third parties build systems, it is necessary to balance the potential gains of keeping the rights with the probability that development costs will be lower if the third party is allowed to keep them.
The support of the third party community is not necessarily as prompt and as consistent as professional support, Lachal points out.
And, while large bodies such as the NHS have successfully used migration to open source to extract concessions from Microsoft, it's not always available as an option to everyone.
Lachal said: "If you try to bluff, Microsoft will not budge. It is necessary to have a project and a strategy – then they will move."
And, rather than focus on cost, Lachal recommends that users focus on the licensing requirements – to lengthen the terms of licences, avoid compulsory upgrades and phased introductions.
"You should keep your open source project on the back burner to keep up the pressure and learn more about open source," added Lachal.
Comments
There are 14 comments. Join the discussion
1. Tim Pizey
Anyone with a clue has been using OS for 5 years!
OS is not about pressurising MS but about using
the best of breed in all web related categories, DB categories and text processing categories.
So what exactly are you wasting your money on??
These 'studies' need careful debunking, they normally are funded by MS.
2. Peter Risdon
So using Open Source software can't stop your IT support contractors charging you for their services. True. You'll still be charged for electricity as well. Hold the front page...
Purely out of interest, where is there any evidence that anyone has ever claimed that using OS software will eliminate third-party costs? This is not a myth - it isn't even a claim.
This report now occupies a coveted high rank in my league table of fatuous remarks about open source software. And, given the impressive standard of the competition, this is a proud achievement.
3. John Foster
I think the main point about OS (Linux in particular) is not that it is free, but that it is *good*.
4. Justin Millner
I am struggling to understand why silicon.com publishes articles like this. Are there really organisations out there that pay for this advice, and worse are there publicly funded bodies that are using our money to hear these fatuous comments?
5. Peter Ivey
I think that this guy has missed the point here and BTW I think that Government has missed it too. The NHS is the second largest employer in the World after the Chinese army (really!) and if we put that together with the rest of the public sector (including universities, Government departments, local authorities etc etc) then there is an enormous potential market. At present, these organisations are being ripped off something rotten by Bill and his croneys in part because each of the above individual organisations insists on doing their own purchasing. So the NHS does a good deal - wonderful - but what about the rest who are pouring our tax pounds into making Bill only the second richest man in the World...
6. chris prentice
Seems to me as though your writer has a vested interest somewhere other than open source!!
7. anonymous
As a home user of Open Source particularly Linux, my maintenence time and agravation come from the Windows systems in my home. It takes 10+ times as much effort for a home user to keep MS Windows up to date, patched, and figuring out why the hell this or that has stopped working than the same efforts for Linux. My linux machines have been up for months but windows has to be rebooted regularly, both windows 98 and XP or they become more unstable and error prone (Windows ME was hell times two). Once one has several computer systems - 11 - the cost of upgrades for office suites, virus checkers, system utilities, becomes a sigificant burdern.
Bottom line, the windows systems in my home take 10+ times as much effort to keep running, 10 times as much money to keep updated, while the Linux systems in my home are install once, boot once, and you don't keep paying and paying and paying for regular upgrades for the applications you use.
Maintaining a server might be closer to parity between windows and linux, but for the guy at home, linux is a big money and time saver.
8. Cliff Baeseman
How about instead of just printing fictional articles about how much it costs to deploy and run linux why not show some real world examples of costly and deployments that did not meet expectations.
I have been a linux administrator for over 6 years, servers and now enterprise desktops. In all of that time I have yet to see any deployment that has not beat all expectations in both cost and functionality.
If what you say is really true prove it to me, show me facts instead of fiction.
9. Epaminondas
Looking at the title and the content of your article: "Public sector warned of open source myths" - and the title of the three related articles following your article:
Linux not the cheaper option, claims report
Novell, SCO and those copyright suits
Three Linux server security holes found
It looks to this observer that you are nothing more than an anti-Linux FUD site.
Certainly no one to be taken seriously.
Best regards,
Epaminondas
10. john adams
If you really think silicon.com is unbalanced dont read it, now how was it I edit my spamassain rules.
11. Nicholas Donovan
Translation: Lately many of the 'experts' including some of those residing at Silicon.com have had their collective clocks cleaned by their dubious predictions regarding Open Source.
Many claimed that it would never fly in Corporate America. It Has
Many claimed that there was no enterprise support. There is.
Many claimed that since they had marketing degrees, they knew that the code from SCO was stolen. It wasn't
Many claimed that Linux was twice as expensive as Windows. It's not.
In fact the purchase patterns of the fortune500 have efficiently laid waste to these 'experts' who want so very desperately to be part of the Microsoft information 'Gate-Keeper' (No pun) strategy. They have failed.
A paradigm shift happened last year folks. Most of the media were too stuck on themselves and their egos to see it.
That is why they have been left behind.
That is why so many within the Fortune500 are telling the IDC's, Gartners and the Yankee Groups etc. etc. of the world.... (wait for it)....
'You're Fired!'
Cheers,
Nick
12. Dave
I think a collective "Duh!" is in order...
Or maybe a "No sh*t Sherlock?!"
The open-source community has been saying for many years, "Think Free-Speech, NOT Free-beer!"
13. Colin Anderson
Oh no, someone has ONCE AGAIN put down open source software and those who promote it.
People can say what they want about open source software projects, there IS a VERY WELL proven record of the success. The Internet is open source and I doubt very much it would be anything like it is now if it was closed and controlled by the likes of Micro$oft. Fair enough, it is also a to a certain extent the result of the open source model as used by NS & MX servers that we have so much SPAM. Even with that, I find it hard to think of M$ doing a better job. On the face of it, it may have been a bit more controlled, but people would have just cracked it to get the same end result. I have NEVER in the 7 years of using Linux & open source software heard it being described as free in the terms of cost as it HAS clearly always been stated after the word free, something along the lines of;
"we don't meen free as in cost, it is in regards to the software itself and how open it is and free people are to make any code changes."
So, with that being said, this latest person is making as much of an idiot of himself as the likes of SCO and M$.
We know that it isn't 100% secure as nothing is impossible to break. It is just a known fact that it is harder to break into Linux than Window$. We also know that it can cost money depending on what the OS's main purpose within a company or individual's computer system. Is the Micro$oft provided support any better than that offered via an enterprise Linux distro like RedHat and now Netware? I doubt it as with these, what you pay for is the support, not as much the right to install it.
14. Hans Neukomm
For myself Open Source never has been an option or question - For me Open Source has been the solution !
Having worked in IT field since early 1970 - with interruptions - a businessman being simple user, or professional or
web publisher.
the result always was the very same. Open Source provided better solutions than any other option available.
More stable, more peace of mind regarding security, and above all - always affordable.
As a professional Web-publisher since 1997 - of course i do more than 99% of all my work on Linux using Open Source. Can i live and do all my work with 100% OS only ? Of course !
Open Source is no free software - someone has to pay development and research, as well as all additional costs.
Every servic\e has its cost. Some a honest share and others ... beyond affordable limits for normal family business or even for
high level business or governments.