Advertisement
Smart VPS: 192 MB RAM, 10 GB disc space, 50 GB data transfer and Virtuozzo OS virtualization solution.
Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
The real cost of open source (FCW)
Federal Computer Week has posted a
look at Linux adoption in the U.S. government; it includes a
half-hearted attempt to show that Linux may be more expensive and the
obligatory Laura DiDio quotes. "NASA officials see another cost
benefit for the agency's internal application development activities: They
can consult diverse IT and subject matter experts in-house and in the
greater scientific community, all of whom contribute to new applications in
the collaborative tradition of open-source software development."
(Log in to post comments)
The audience of Federal Computer Week Posted Nov 22, 2004 17:53 UTC (Mon) by lilo (guest, #661) [Link] Government contracts have traditionally been quite lucrative. Who publishes Federal Computer Week and what is the magazine's primary audience? If that audience consists of traditional government contractors who make their money from high profit margin contracts, the editorial staff might have every reason to want to suggest that free software is a passing fad rather than a long-term trend.
The real cost of open source [Impying it would be higher] Posted Nov 22, 2004 20:17 UTC (Mon) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] The usual suspects, Microsoft, Laura DiDio, George Weiss, what else would you expect them to say?"With open source, who's going to support the hundreds of thousands of users?" asked Quazi Zaman, platform technology specialist manager for Microsoft's federal division, based in Washington, D.C. "
Umm... aks a few Linux vedors and see if they have support.
Despite all this FUD people are smart enough to see through the smokescreen as evidenced by increasing Linux deployments.
The real cost of open source [Impying it would be higher] Posted Nov 22, 2004 22:09 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462) [Link] Someone should conduct a study of the costs exclusively associated with the use of proprietary software. All of the cost factors mentioned in this article (and many more articles and studies like it), including migration, equally apply to any proprietary platform or product.There are plenty of costs that are solely attributable to the fact that the smallest building block of proprietary software is a black box, that never seems to fit in with the other boxes, even if you buy the expensive one that comes with cellotape.
The real cost of open source (FCW) Posted Nov 22, 2004 21:09 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] This article actually seems very positive to Linux. You have a lot of quotes from pundits about how expensive Linux is. These are balanced against a lot of quotes from users about how inexpensive Linux is. Microsoft asks who will support your Linux installation. The GSA replies, Red Hat, but we're probably not going to need it after this year.
The real cost of open source (FCW) Posted Nov 22, 2004 22:06 UTC (Mon) by simon_kitching (guest, #4874) [Link] Yes, I feel it was a linux-positive article too. In fact I wonder whether the author was subtly sticking the knife into linux critics. As iabervon says, each pompous statement by 'analysts' and PR staff of the proprietory software industry is *immediately* rebutted in direct and unambiguous language by quotes from people with actual experience. It makes DiDio et. al. look plain silly to me...
|
|||||||||||