Advanced

Open source? No good for cost cutting, say CIOs

Posted by Sander_Marechal on · 5 comments
Silicon.com; By Steve Ranger
Mail this story
Print this story

Because it lacks the expensive licensing that is often the hallmark of proprietary software, open source is regularly touted as a way for IT departments to make their budget stretch a little bit further and it has already enjoyed considerable success in certain areas of the enterprise, such as web servers. However, when asked if they had chosen open source software as a way of cutting their costs during the recession, just two of the 12-strong jury said yes. In contrast, several CIOs said the costs of migrating to open source and the associated expenditure on retraining staff serve as a disincentive for adoption.

Full Story

  Nav
» Read more about: Story Type: News Story

» Get new stories by e-mail: nightly or as they are published

« Return to the newswire homepage

  Related stories
» More like this

Comments (5)

If they were totally honest, most CIOs would admit that Open Source cuts their own personal income, and that of their "cousins" in Switzerland.

Open source projects just can't provide that added incentive of Fine Dining to CIOs, nor can Open Source Projects "gainfully" employ ne'er do well younger brothers.

Open Source Projects just don't provide "educational" trips to beds-and-breakfasts in Lovely Washington State wine country, at the expense of the Project.

Since Open Source Pojects rarely want to "go public", they also can't provide stock options to Swiss "cousins" of CIOs, either.
> ...several CIOs said the costs of migrating to open source and the associated expenditure on retraining staff serve as a disincentive for adoption.

For the adoption of FOSS, yes. But never for those required proprietary software upgrades, which simply must be done (i.e., Microsoft Office 2007, including a Notes to Outlook migration, at my workplace).
@jdixon: Excellent point. The CIOs in question are guilty of the short-term thinking that plagues so many companies these days. Everyone looks at the quarterly report or for a quick return on investment. A migration to FOSS is an investment, one that yields positive financial results in the long term, not in the first quarter. Any honest-to-goodness cost/benefit analysis of FOSS vs. proprietary is going to favor whatever is incumbent in the short run. Unless there is a lot of custom code to migrate or a lot of business-specific software than only runs on Windows generally FOSS will always look better in the medium to long term.
Frist giggle!

Oh, fourth giggle. Anyway it proves that comedy is not dead.

Quoting:In contrast, several CIOs said the costs of migrating to open source and the associated expenditure on retraining staff serve as a disincentive for adoption.


This is how lock in works, by making it [too] expensive to migrate away. The on going costs of the proprietary offering may be higher than the on going costs of the FOSS offering, but in many cases businesses can find it difficult, or impossible, to justify the short term extra expense (which usually takes them over budget), and this is the point of what companies like Microsoft do.

Post a comment

A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.

Your message:
|||||
10
Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help

Sign up and post (it is free)  or  Log in and post