Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Save a job with open source

I can talk until I'm blue in my space about the technical advantages of Linux and open-source software. Forget about that for now though. Let me give you a reason for your office to use them that may strike home: It can save jobs, including, just maybe, your job.

This simple fact was brought home to me over the weekend when I was at the SouthEast Linux Fest at Clemson University. There, I saw Chad Wollenberg, a network administrator who focuses on the integration of free and open technologies in education. The point of his talk was really quite simple: "Why should our school systems be paying for proprietary software when teachers are being laid off?"

Good question. My own home county of Buncombe in western North Carolina will be letting about 80 teachers go with the current budget. Like many other government agencies, and businesses, they simply don't have enough money coming in.

But, Wollenberg asks, why don't we save money for teachers, by switching to FOSS (free and open-source software), he's not talking about major changes, like switching from Windows to Linux on desktops. He's talking about taking small steps. As Wollenberg points out, it's not so much that the school systems have problems with open source; it's that they're reluctant to adopt anything new.

Instead of big scary changes, he suggests that you should try to get school systems to start with end-user programs like Firefox, OpenOffice, and Moodle, open-source course management software. The argument you should use to encourage administration to make these changes is simple economics.

For example, when an impoverished school district in Virginia faced moving from Office 2003, which is reaching its end of support lifetime, to Office 2007, they were in trouble. Even at Microsoft's rock-bottom price of $50 per academic license per PC, it would cost them over $200-thousand dollars. By convincing them to switch to OpenOffice and Google Docs, Wollenberg saved them that money. Or, to look at it another way, that was about four mid-level jobs saved.

That same lesson can be applied in any government agency or business place. It's not easy, of course. As several teachers in attendance and Wollenberg pointed out there are several barriers to FOSS. They range from, "I have no idea what the hell you're talking about," to such FUD as only Microsoft Office formats are acceptable. Ah folks, leaving aside the advantages of ODF (Open Document Format) over Microsoft's proprietary formats, OpenOffice 3.1 does just fine at creating documents and spreadsheets in Office 2003's native document formats.

The real telling argument though isn't whether ODF is technically or ideologically better than Microsoft's Open-XML format. It's that when you need to switch from one version of proprietary software to another, you should point out to the powers that be that the open-source equivalents can save them a lot of money.

For instance, Microsoft has finally given up on Microsoft Money. Intuit, of course, wants all those customers to go over to Quicken. But, should they? Shouldn't they at least consider GnuCash?

While GnuCash doesn't get the headlines of Linux or Firefox, it's a very solid accounting program. And, yes, it can import data from Microsoft Money. It's also free, and you won't have to pay for it every few years as you do with Quicken, which requires you to pay for an upgrade.

Is that a lot of money? No, on a per desktop or per user basis, it's not. But, when times are tight, and you're dealing with dozens to tens of thousands of licenses, you better believe it's a ton of cash.

Now, I don't know about you, but given a choice between saving money by cutting jobs or by switching to FOSS, I know which one I'm going to go for every time. If you're smart you'll agree. After all, the job you may be saving might be yours.

What People Are Saying

The status quo needs to go

I have visited many schools in the area where I live--my children have attended them over the years. I have seen nothing but expensive proprietary software in all cases while the school boards press for more levies to cover increasing operating costs.

In then end, the students, instructors, and administrators end up knowing nothing except proprietary software. It is all they know and they are trained to deal with software "the proprietary way" looking for a vendors to "sell" them a license or waiting for the next vendor to come along and sway them into throwing even more money away on hardware updates and software applications they do not even need to buy. --money is sooo easy to spend when it is not yours.

I have been working with FOSS for many years now and have helped many people make the switch to Linux. Not one of them have switched back to proprietary software because they see firsthand how easy and inexpensive FOSS is and, more importantly, how well it works for them.

At home we use Linux exclusively. Everybody has their own PC. We have never had a virus or lost control of a system. We even have a central Linux server at our home which provides valuable network and backup services in an amazingly reliable way. We could never do this in a cost effective way if we had to use proprietary software. On the other hand, many of the people I know who continue to use proprietary software have only one or perhaps two systems to share in their home--which they can barely keep running $$. The point I am trying to make here is that you can do far more with FOSS than you can with proprietary. You end up with more technology, more capability, far more reliability, all at far less cost with FOSS.

So, what's the purpose of a school?

I always thought that the purpose of a school was to prepare a student for life. Yes, the unions and academics have hijacked schools,and this editorial seems in the same vane.

If a student desires only a high school education, then they need to be taught the tools of a job they will probably need. Today, those computer based skills revolve around MS products.

If a student desires to continue to College, most require Windows based software for about everything, except for server applications. Even the instructors put out Windows based software for test taking, etc.

So, it seems that this editorial is just another attempt to hijack schools for some political agenda.

The New Jersey example is a perfect example of why no one really cares about Open Source to save money. 0.72% of the budget goes to software because MS gives educational discounts.

One must also ask, is the Open Source software truely equal to the commercial software?

I've used software from both sides of the argument. You get what you pay for.

No one is going to pay for the conversion to Open Source anyway. Remember, conversions cost. The City of Munich is an example. $45 million and about 2/3 of the money is training or modifications in one form or another.

How many years would it take to repay the conversion costs? I doubt that any school district would foot the bill for that alone.

It is highly doubtful that Open Source really saves any money here.

Public school is intended to

Public school is intended to make the masses smart enough so that they don't have to rely on welfare, but keep them dumb enough so that they are happy with Bud Light and baseball rather than ask tough questions.
Just look at who runs schools in the nation. School boards are stuffed with people who have no clue about education or how to run a business. Yet, they sign off on million Dollar contracts and spend tax money. Any schmuck off the street can buy school books cheaper than what BOEs pay for them. So why switch to something that might ruin their cozy board meetings? There is nobody on BOEs that is gutsy enough to propose changes like this. And once the SI sees that he can get kickbacks from buying Microsoft the topic is closed anyway.
I see more chances to have companies switch to desktop Linux than public schools going open-source.

And the City of Munich example was mainly really bad project management. It had absolutely nothing to do with Linux not being up to par. Only after they started implementing Linux they came across all the systems that are proprietary and that nobody told them about.

You are extremely cynical

If you are that cynical, why not run for school board and make some changes.

Unfortunately, you'll probably find that life isn't as simple as you think. Many variables you just don't know about.

As for Munich and bad project management, learn a lesson. If a school district attempted to move to FOSS, they'd run into the same problems. You have no idea how many custom apps exist in every district. The expense of converting those apps alone negate any cost savings.

FOSS really doesn't save any money when you do a migration cost analysis. Been there, done that. Licensing seems expensive, but migration is more expensive.

Maybe Steven ought to get some financial help before writing the next article.

open minds and sharing expierences

The purpose of a school is to help people open their minds, share experience, and learn. The students need to experience as much as they can to help them gain the skills they will need when they move on with life. Like it or not, the software world is forever changing and FOSS is part of it. Teaching our children ONE WAY to do things will not help us stay competitive in an ever changing world.

FOSS allows you to put more technology in the hands of more students for a give amount of expenditure--WAY more. You end up with more systems with more capabilities and smarter, happier, and more productive students. The free and open-source (FOSS) perspective allow the students to learn and share more about the technology they are using and build upon that knowledge to take it with them into the future.

well if that is the cases

well if that is the cases just do like what schools do over the rest of the world pirate the software :P

Using Windows saves jobs

More jobs are lost when companies decide to use Linux, because efficiency plunges. People know how to use Windows, and all good business software is designed for Windows. Linux lacks good software and it is a time waster because no one knows how to use it.

Adopting Linux will put the final nail in the coffin for a company that is financially struggling.

experience speaks

You obviously have never used Linux. You mentioned that it is a "time waster"? Not so.

I can set up a fully functional Linux box, from scratch, in about 20 minutes including office software and all OS and application updates. It takes days to do the same with your favorite system. Your system will most likely be broken down in a matter of weeks and you will be reloading it regularly (taking days of fussing around) You will be waiting on virus scanning and fussing with malware concerns with your system continually--paying fees along the way.
...while the Linux system will run non-stop reliable and free for years on end or until you decide to upgrade it to a newer distribution--for free.

One word: imaging.

One word: imaging.

Using Windows wastes time

You forgot to account for the time tech support people must waste maintaining Windows: scanning Windows for malware, reinstalling Windows after it inevitable self-corrupts, making problem Windows systems behave (reboots and prayer).

And since we're trying to save money here, you forgot about the money wasted on hardware churn forced by Microsoft every couple years.

You also forgot the wasted time whenever offices upgrade to Office 2007 due to the complete change of interface. On the other hand, OpenOffice has a lower learning curve than Office 2007 since it looks much more like prior versions of Office.

The biggest obstacle to productivity in the office is Microsoft's buggy, unstable excuse for office productivity software. If I had a dollar for every time a Microsoft product corrupted my valuable data then Bill Gates would be working as my cabana boy.