fsfe-uk
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Fsfe-uk] BECTA discriminate against FLOSS?


From: Chris Croughton
Subject: Re: [Fsfe-uk] BECTA discriminate against FLOSS?
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2004 18:03:44 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i

On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 12:58:58PM +0000, ian wrote:

> On Sat, 2004-01-03 at 11:55, Kevin Donnelly wrote:
> > 
> > On Saturday 03 January 2004 11:11 am, ian wrote:
> > 
> > I think the big problem with all "official" bodies is that they are
> > very risk-averse (for good reasons - nobody wants to get a drilling
> > in front of the PAC or equivalent for "wasting taxpayers' money").
> > So they will tend to go for something that "everybody else is
> > using". 
> 
> True, however they still have a fair track record of wasting taxpayers
> money ;-) They are quite able to do that with whatever systems they
> use.

It's the old "No one ever got fired for buying IBM" problem.  When there
is an 'obvious' large supplier that is the safe option, irrespective of
whether there are cheaper or 'better' options, because "everyone does
it".  IBM itself is no longer in that position, but MS are very firmly
there.

> > Unfortunately, they may not believe that free software is here to
> > stay, and that it really does offer all the benefits it promises.  
> 
> Tide seems to be turning even if slowly so we just have to keep
> plugging away. Once they do believe FLOSS is here to stay - and the
> whole of China going over to it is reasonably persuasive - things
> could change very rapidly.

I'm tempted to move to China, or one of the South American countries
which is heavily promoting FLOSS for government use <g>.

> Its why I spend so much time developing this side of our business -
> risky to an extent but the potential rewards being in at the beginning
> are much greater than working for MS.

Well, I wouldn't work for MS if you paid me.  But is FLOSS actually all
that financially rewarding?  I have yet to see a business model for
FLOSS which really supports developing the software, the RMS ideals seem
to be based on getting revenue for maintaining it which seems to me a
lot more shaky (for instance, if I have the source and can apply the
patches myself, or even just download the next version from the net, I
don't make any revenue for anyone).  Red Hat is not a good example (it
seems to me that they are breaking the spirit of FLOSS even if not the
letter of the licence).

> > I had a fairly senior individual say to me that he was suspicious of
> > committing to OpenOffice.org - wasn't it just a ploy by Sun to gain
> > marketshare, and wouldn't they make it proprietary again once they'd
> > reached their target (whatever that was) for marketshare?  My reply
> > about the licence being irretrievable didn't really convince him.

I do hope you said 'irrevokable', an 'irretrievable' licence doesn't
sound very good <g>.

> I have come across this too. Its really ignorance and wishful
> thinking.  Most people are personally averse to change - its hassle so
> justifying a reason not to change is natural. If such individuals
> seriously liked the idea of change to OO.o and the corresponding
> savings they'd do the necessary research to find out the truth about
> things like this.

But they don't really want to change anything, except to pay less money.
Very few people are at all interested in the 'freedom' aspects of
software.  Out of the four GNU freedoms, the only one they are
interested in is the first, "the freedom to run the program, for any
purpose", and they believe they have that with proprietary software
(once they have a site-wide licence, at least).  They aren't interested
(or capable in most cases) of studying the program and adapting it
themselves, nor in improving it and releasing the improvements to the
public.  And many companies (and lots of individuals) do believe that
they have the right to copy it and give it away (as long as they don't
get caught).

The only sort of 'free' they are really interested in is "as in beer",
and large organisations tend to distrust that 'free' things are any good
("anything free is worth what you pay for it"), or think that there's a
catch somewhere ("there's no free lunch" -- as in someone taking it over
and making it proprietary again).

It's up to the people 'selling' free software to make a good case for
it, just like with any other product.  If I've always bought cars from
Ford, why should I research anyone else's cars?

> They are followers, not leaders. But that is a source of competitive
> advantage. If things do start to tip, those who have buried their
> heads in the sand stand to lose out big time to those that have taken
> the trouble to learn the reality. Knowledge is power.

Nice soundbite, but as far as I can see it only really applies to big
changes in technology, and not always even there.  Those who decried CDs
did indeed lose out in te end, but look at VCRs where those early
adopters who bought the (technically superior) Betamax ones got burnt
when the actual market went to VHS.  Those who waited to see which would
win out gained because they didn't have to change.  The same is
happening with DVD +/- R/RW, whichever one becomes standardised the
"early adopters" will in the main lose.

> > From his point of view, having experienced the IT industry's way of
> > doing things up until now, this is in fact a valid concern, even if
> > misplaced.  I wonder whether some sort of file of case-studies could
> > be built up, perhaps under the AFFS' auspices, to try and persuade
> > decision-makers like him that even though evrybody may not be using
> > free software (yet), at least a few are using it effectively?
> 
> There is plenty of this type of evidence about. It doesn't take much
> to find it. Just type Open Source Software and Industry into Google.

Well, I found the web page of OSAIA, which claims to represent the "open
source community" but doesn't seem to contain much else apart from a bit
of bluster (no evidence or facts).  I found an Italian working group for
Libre Software.  The rest seemed to be opinions of individuals, still no
examples or facts about it.

> Question is Do they want to find it?

And as I said above, no, they don't.  They might not be against it, but
they aren't going to bother to hunt for a few traces of evidence either.
At most they will put out a tender and allow FLOSS vendors to bid on the
same basis as the proprietary vendors, but it's up to the vendors to
make their case.  "Build it and they will come" rarely works.

If there were a "file of case studies" to which people could be pointed
then that would indeed help, but I don't see one.  Don't expect the
potential buyers to go hunting, though.

Chris C




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]