By Naked CIO, 14 April 2009 08:00
COMMENT
The recession has led many IT leaders to search for ways to save money. But open source isn't one of them, says the Naked CIO.
It still surprises me that open source supporters, activists and vendors make the argument that model is cheaper than other software in business environments. This is a myth.
Anyone who has run open source systems in a complex and enterprise business environment must be aware that while it is no more expensive than proprietary solutions, it certainly is not compellingly cheaper.
It's like many long held beliefs that have crippled the credibility of leaders within IT departments all over the country. Another prime example is that IP telephony is less expensive then traditional telephony.
In both cases the cost models are significantly different but the total cost of ownership and support are very similar.
The proponents of open source always seem to point to this area of cost because in every organisation the idea of saving money will generate a positive response from the board. Leaders who take this stance must be prepared for a knock on their credibility because it is unlikely they will be able to demonstrate a significant cost reduction through the implementation of open source.
If you believe open source is right for your organisation you must concentrate on the value that it will bring in terms of effectiveness and not the fallacy of cost reduction. Your business plan should concentrate on which product is best for your overall business.
There will be those who disagree with me that there is not a cost advantage to open source. However, managing multiple mixed environments during my career I have yet to see any significant cost savings through the introduction of enterprise-level open source technology.
The subscription fees for open source products are ongoing costs that for larger organisations can be quite expensive. The cost of experienced and knowledgeable support staff is much more expensive than support engineers for traditional software platforms. Finally, the cost of integration in a mixed environment is much more expensive than in a pure Windows shop.
I am certainly not saying that open source is more expensive but I am constantly amused that there is still an overwhelming opinion among professionals in the industry that open source remains a cheaper option when clearly it isn't. It also amazes me that we allow this fairy tale to propagate without proper challenge and investigation.
Don't hide behind pounds and pence if you want to deploy open source technology. Rather talk about why from a system perspective it is right for your organisation. If you cannot justify the decision based on performance and effectiveness, you have no right to present it as a viable option to the board - even if you are an open source believer.
Comments
There are 6 comments. Join the discussion
1. Austin Holdsworth
I agree with much of what the CIO has said here because it seems that her / his experience has been in a large enterprise environment with OSS vendors providing support services on terms that are comparable / competitive with close sourced software vendors.
For me though, the conclusion is too much of a generalisation about open source software and how an organisation can use it & benefit from it.
Many large organisations are well out of their comfort zones when even discussing open source software. That's their loss as I see it.
Its something that can give the more agile businesses a head start in these difficult times. For many an SME, free software is free, if you want it.
2. anonymous
I admit that we are not a large enterprise, but it costs the same whether I am supporting Microsoft or opensource. Integration costs are not going to vary much, it takes the same amount of time to get a Windows computer talking to a server which ever OS it is using. Licensing and keeping check on legal licenses are the big expenses.
3. karen challinor
on reading this article the phrase "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs" springs nimbly to mind
when investigating the possible adoption of any technology within a company you work out what it will cost to adopt
now even if the product itself costs nothing to acquire there will be training costs for users, implementors and support personnel, implementation costs including possible changes to the infrastructure, maintenance costs as the product changes with new releases and support costs which you may have to provide in house as external support for free products tends to be where people want paying
in short you do a full cost benefits analysis regardless of the price on the box and if the answer you get at the end doesn't support adoption of the product you don't adopt it
anyone who doesn't do this has no business being a CIO as a good 90% of the job is turning IT assets into a monetary equivalent so the board understands their value and can make sensible decisions about the disposition of IT assets
now I assume that these open source supporters you speak of have done their sums and like the answers which is why they support these products and likewise the people who don't support OS have done similar sums and got a different answer
maybe the question you should be asking is not "is open source cheaper" but "have people done their analysis correctly" and if so "why are they getting different answers"
open source has a place but it's not right for everyone
4. anonymous
Not much evidence to support this opinion. Seems more like personal prejudice dressed up with a bit of pseudo authority. I preferred your other commentators view, a week ago, which at least had the merit of some factual content
5. Tony Young
If you've spent enough time in IT, you know nothing is for free. Open source applications represent a cost shift for IT departments. Rather than investing in paid software, which comes with patches and support, you are shifting these costs to your staff. I have yet to see any credible studies that show open source to be "cheaper." Albeit, the open source companies may have these studies
6. evil1dwk
Are you seriously joking? Come on man. The "well the employees to manage opensource software cost more than your average windows idiot" is a freakin joke. I have worked in IT for the last 10 years. For the last 5 as Director over seeing IT infrastructure. We have slowly migrated most of our systems from windows to linux. Let's see, I saved money with opensource by switching to openchange, openoffice and alfresco to replace microsoft exchange server, microsoft office, and sharepoint. We stopped using acrobat reader PDF printer and replaced them with opensource solutions. We also migrated to openfire opensource XMPP server. All of which are enterprise level solution. None of which we pay reoccurring fees for and none of which cost a single penny to download and install for testing and later deployment. I install and manage all the servers here. I don't get paid more because we are switching to linux and I need more knowledge. If you pay little for crap microsoft people then they are going to sucks as Linux techs and you should have gotten better microsoft techs to begin with. I don't pay any subscription fees. Sure we can pay for support for these but we don't on some. Take and price out a sharepoint server for 200+ users. Take and price out Microsoft office 2007 for 200+ users. Then try to show me one place I wouldn't save money by using free opensource software as an alternative.
I'm not a linux zealot. I see where Microsoft has it's place in the IT field. My point is your argument is a joke. Opensource can be completely free if you know what you are doing. My certifications in linux cost half what Microsoft cost me.