Transcript www.kakupesa.net

Open source / free software
vs proprietary software –
what is best for business?
Kaido Kikkas
Tallinn University *** Estonian IT Society
Paving for eFuture
Reykjavik, September 13, 2007
The distribution of this document is governed by the GNU Free Documentation
License version 1.2 or later. See the license at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html
For those unfamiliar with the
free world...
... these terms and concepts are worth studying:
free software
open source
GNU General Public License
copyleft
hacker
hacker ethic
Linus' Law on work motivation
NB! Due to the presentation's small timeframe,
additional arguments, data and links are provided by
the complementary webpage (including these slides)
at
http://www.kakupesa.net/kakk/docs/reykjavik200
Looking at the title...

I'd like to ask about a small detail:
Best for WHOSE business...?
I try to keep the user's (as opposed to
vendor's) perspective

Plus, in the next slides I try to look at a
business considering a shift from proprietary to
free model and give some arguments to
support the decision

What would a business expect
from its IT?
doing the necessary thing
reasonable acquiring costs (esp. SME)
reasonable running costs
reasonable (re)training costs
reliability
interoperability
security
support
flexibility, extensibility and scalability
choice of services and providers (no lock-in)

1. doing the necessary thing
All software regardless of licensing model can
be appropriate. Or not.

A caveat – when moving to software with
different licensing model, do not assume that all
your previous knowledge remains valid. Or to
put it simpler – Linux is NOT Windows

Yet the added benefit of open source code
allows for better modifications. Also, the market
is open – one can opt for in-house
improvements or choose the best partner
instead of paying extorting prices to a market
dominator

2. acquiring costs
The smaller the enterprise, the more important
(typically) issue it is

FOSS results in large savings in this stage
(probably not denied even by proprietary
vendors)

But even in the free world, going blindly for the
seemingly cheapest option may not be wise

In the business world (somewhat opposed to
the NGO, education and private spheres) using
commercially-backed solutions (which may cost
quite a lot) may be justified. But not always – an
important factor is the in-house IT capacity

3. running costs
Similar to the former, but has more variables in
it

Leaving your homework undone may
sometimes hit quite hard

Due to the increasingly unreasonable
'intellectual property' system, may run into
various artificial obstacles (patents etc) when
not careful. In Europe, the problem is much
smaller than in the US

Earlier, finding qualified staff was somewhat an
issue (not much anymore, but depends on the
location)

4. (re)training costs
Can be substantial when moving large
numbers of employees to a new platform


In essence, do not depend on licensing model
Often cited as a prohibitive factor in moving to
free models – yet the same applies to
proprietary systems

E.g. for a typical desktop user, moving from MS
Office 2000 to the new 2007 is arguably more
difficult than moving to OpenOffice.org

Free model can result in more flexible training
– again, you do not need “Authorized Trainers”

5. reliability
Depends also on the maintenance skills of the
tech staff – incompetent technicians can work
wonders (in a negative sense)

Free systems (e.g. BSD or Linux) have
excellent reliability marks worldwide

6. interoperability
Proprietary systems tend to be interoperable as
long as you use the products of the same
company

Sometimes interoperability is considered directly
counterproductive to the company's goals (the
earlier case of MS Office documents, or also the
current OOXML debate). Conflict of interests?

Free systems have more potential here, although
it should not be taken for granted – in some cases
the initial author does not have need for it and
thus will not stress it

Open standards are the key – but more than
often, there is a strong correlation with software

7. security
A long-time plague in MS software: Trojan
horses and viruses are 99% Windows-specific
(in fact, a Linux virus is like the Yeti – some
people claim it exists. Never seen one yet)

Being locked into a single platform also
contributes towards weaker security – an attack
will only need a single vector

A side remark: regardless of platform, the
biggest security risk is always located between
the keyboard and the chair => a training issue

8. support
At the first glance, this one is a clear win for
proprietary systems. “Linux has no support”...

Actually, surprisingly large number of free
systems have commercial support available.
Moreover, the market is open (again) and thus it
is much harder to charge excessive sums for
support services

Support can be obtained both in a traditional
way (by purchasing the software; e.g. Red Hat)
or from third parties

9. flexibility, extensibility and
scalability

Clearly better in free systems. Examples:


Most of the Top 500 supercomputers run
Linux
Free NetBSD operating system supports
more than 50 hardware platforms
Flexibility is an important factor in open source,
so is extensibility. Both stem from the lack of
either technical (lack of source code) or legal
(prohibitive licensing) obstacles

10. Choice
Monoculture is dangerous – both in biology and in
technology (some call it inbreeding)

Proprietary vendors often strive to create large,
unified solutions on a single (their own) platform,
leaving it more vulnerable to threats

Also, having achieved a lock-in on a customer, the
vendor is able to charge remarkably higher prices
than in the case of open market

Where proprietary approach
may make sense
In highly professional, specialised fields with
turnkey solutions handed out (e.g. composers)



the client can afford to pay for support
the client's time is expensive – losing access
to his/her tools would cost much more than
calling for a specialist
But even here I'd consider a free approach for
greater flexibility and playing room for support

The more common the application, the more
obvious should using the free model be

Personal opinion: if I had a
business

I'd run my IT sector roughly as follows




MS Windows only where specific applications
demand it; preferrably also locked into a
separate network cluster; prefer XP over
Vista as long as possible; using free
applications on Windows where possible
(app compatibility)
MacOS X is an option for presentation/sales
The rest would run on free systems (exact
methods – support etc - depend on
circumstances)
And I would be far from the first one doing that
Conclusion
Free models have been discussed from a
variety of viewpoints – in this presentation we
left aside ethical and social issues and focused
on professional ones only (my personal reasons
to avoid proprietary software are 50/50 a
business decision and an ethical statement).
But even these are sufficient


Thus, my point is: BE BUYERS AWARE :)
Thank you!
Contact:
Kaido Kikkas
[email protected]
http://www.kakupesa.net