Free and/or open source software

[telstarbox]

The government want to make greater use of open-source software to save money.

Free and open-source alternatives have been around for a while now but Microsoft Windows and Office seem to remain popular with businesses. Is this due to inertia and fear of change or are Microsoft products genuinely better than the free alternatives?

 

[cjp]

The government want to make greater use of open-source software to save money.

Free and open-source alternatives have been around for a while now but Microsoft Windows and Office seem to remain popular with businesses. Is this due to inertia and fear of change or are Microsoft products genuinely better than the free alternatives?

Yes & No

Few things beat free - especially when they work.

Of course being free there is not a lot of money to be made from it - and what does business want? Money, lots of money and large profits.
I wish change would come but I guess it is not going to happen

Ubuntu, Firefix, libre office, foxit, Gimp Evolution, Thunderbird, Vlc, Smplayer, Clementine Bleachbit Xsane all free thank you very much!

 

[Royston Vasey]

Yes & No

Few things beat free - especially when they work.

Of course being free there is not a lot of money to be made from it - and what does business want? Money, lots of money and large profits.
I wish change would come but I guess it is not going to happen

Ubuntu, Firefix, libre office, foxit, Gimp Evolution, Thunderbird, Vlc, Smplayer, Clementine Bleachbit Xsane all free thank you very much!

I think this is quite short sighted. The value of Office depends on the level of integration required. A reasonable sized business will want integration between Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, Lync, Powerpoint, Sharepoint (very important) and servers themselves - plus the stability of running it in the Windows OS, the reliability you allude to, and the support when something goes wrong.

Would you be happy if Air Traffic Control ran on free software written by college students in their bedrooms? It's the same for any business. Downtime is expensive.

It's not just about an individual typing an essay or keeping tabs on their bank accounts. There are loads of pieces of software which can most of the basics, separately, very well indeed. Browsing, chat and word processing aren't hard to deal with. However, very few free pieces of software can meet all of a real business's needs beyond the superficial. Besides, the cost of retraining every individual is quickly prohibitive when you can just rely on every interviewee being Office proficient.

Integration and reliability is why real businesses pay for MS Office and everything that goes with it. That's why they choose it to help them make all that nasty money you're talking about.

 

[Crossover]

I think this is quite short sighted. The value of Office depends on the level of integration required. A reasonable sized business will want integration between Outlook, Word, Excel, Access, Lync, Powerpoint, Sharepoint (very important) and servers themselves - plus the stability of running it in the Windows OS, the reliability you allude to, and the support when something goes wrong.

Would you be happy if Air Traffic Control ran on free software written by college students in their bedrooms? It's the same for any business. Downtime is expensive.

It's not just about an individual typing an essay or keeping tabs on their bank accounts. There are loads of pieces of software which can most of the basics, separately, very well indeed. Browsing, chat and word processing aren't hard to deal with. However, very few free pieces of software can meet all of a real business's needs beyond the superficial. Besides, the cost of retraining every individual is quickly prohibitive when you can just rely on every interviewee being Office proficient.

Integration and reliability is why real businesses pay for MS Office and everything that goes with it. That's why they choose it to help them make all that nasty money you're talking about.

This!

There are alternative ways of doing it, granted, but Microsoft stuff is definitely a de facto standard for a large proportion of businesses.

Integration and support is key for businesses and yes, downtime costs money!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think Royston Vasey has hit the nail on the head. In my organisation MS Windows XP is the standard for all machines. I'm pretty sure the servers are all Windows. All the safety and mission critical software runs on Windows, from the control room call taking and dispatch software to the vehicle mobile data terminals to the software that links us with other services.

 

[SS4]

The government want to make greater use of open-source software to save money.

Free and open-source alternatives have been around for a while now but Microsoft Windows and Office seem to remain popular with businesses. Is this due to inertia and fear of change or are Microsoft products genuinely better than the free alternatives?

Hahaha no. Microsoft's integration can be done well enough with FOSS and the latter is not just coded by students and amateurs (see Debian and Red Hat). I do not know if it'll save money mind when it comes to training and support but IMO it should be done to give us some sort of independence from Microsoft and by extension the NSA

 

[maniacmartin]

Any business whose standard is Windows XP will be in for a surprise when the support is dropped very soon!

I work for a financial company that moves billions of pounds every day, and we use a lot of free and open source software. For some mission critical machines we have a support contract with Redhat (even though the product is open source). For other machines we use CentOS, which is basically the same thing. Linux isn't confined to our servers - we have it on the desktop too with full AD integration, despite Microsoft's attempts to break interoperability at every turn.

We use open source software on these machines as it is leaner, much more customisable and deemed by us to be more stable, secure and easier to maintain, with smaller overheads.There's no faff of maintaining records of licenses, no need to learn the latest Microsoft silly wizards and you can learn how things work rather than having a black box of magic. No vendor lock in is good too.

Of course, there's always things you need Windows for, so we have Windows 7 desktops and some Windows servers too, but they are in the minority.

I won't argue against the fact that Microsoft has the typical office products nailed and is way ahead of the competition (OpenOffice/LibreOffice sadly don't even come close). Office is Microsoft's heartland, where they perform best. However, if you are a company above a certain size who is going to need an IT department anyway, and develop a lot of highly mission-critical software inhouse that has to be reliable and error-free*, open source platforms are a very viable option. My opinion is that FOSS is the best option for this.

For a smaller company, or a company who only uses their IT systems for email, spreadsheets and word documents, perhaps the Microsoft way is best, as employees are more likely to be familiar with it and supporting staff easier (and cheaper) to find.

I run FOSS at home, as that's what I'm used to, and I like tinkering with the internals of my systems. That isn't for everyone I know, but I wouldn't have it any other way FOSS isn't just for cheapskates, it's also for those who want reliable systems and visibility into their workings with no faffy wizards. The fact it's free moneywise is a bonus.

 

[Nick W]

The use of Microsoft software is as a result of vendor lock in. Companies were lured in back in the 90s and have had trouble leaving ever since.

I think there are few things which Microsoft has ever led the way in. Personally I think their only actual contributions to society come from the research departments, e.g. Xbox Kinnect! MS Office when it first came out was inferior to the competitors but anti-competitive practices knocked them out. (You can read the history and make up your own judgement)

Let's be honest. Nothing truly mission critical will run on Windows. A website which will be expensive if it goes down, e.g. Amazon and Google isn't going to be running Microsoft software.

Perhaps I'm somewhat eccentric. If I was interviewing tech types and the CV was blatantly does in MS Word, with poor use of styles and line spacing I would reject the candidate outright. There's nothing like a good bit of 80s technology (LaTeX) for producing a decent CV. eg http://anorien.csc.warwick.ac.uk/mi.../moderncv/examples/template_classic_green.pdf

Obviously with sans-serif fonts for on-screen use and serif if sent in the post.
http://anorien.csc.warwick.ac.uk/mi.../moderncv/examples/template_classic_green.pdf

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Obviously with sans-serif fonts for on-screen use and serif if sent in the post.
http://anorien.csc.warwick.ac.uk/mi.../moderncv/examples/template_classic_green.pdf

A view to which I, at fast approaching the age of 69, do so concur.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Let's be honest. Nothing truly mission critical will run on Windows. A website which will be expensive if it goes down, e.g. Amazon and Google isn't going to be running Microsoft software.

Aren't most EMUs operated through a TMS running in Windows 3.1 or not much later? I read that on here a while ago!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The use of Microsoft software is as a result of vendor lock in. Companies were lured in back in the 90s and have had trouble leaving ever since.

Is there less chance of "nasties" creeping into your system when choosing to use Microsoft products than when compared to using "free" alternative products ?

 

[transmanche]

Is there less chance of "nasties" creeping into your system when choosing to use Microsoft products than when compared to using "free" alternative products ?

Probably the reverse is true. Virus/malware writers are more likely to target the OS that has the most users - going for the biggest return for the least effort.

Hence why there are fewer malware attacks targeted at OS X compared to Windows - but as the popularity of Macs increases, so does the number of viruses/malware targeting OS X.

 

[telstarbox]

In my work we use various specialist design programs which are only available on Windows as the market for these programs is relatively small, and I can't see that changing in the near future.

 

[starrymarkb]

Aren't most EMUs operated through a TMS running in Windows 3.1 or not much later? I read that on here a while ago!

Yes - or Windows 2000 for more modern builds. Embedded Systems tend to use older OS's that have been fully debugged over time.

Similarly the Airbus A320's flight control systems are based around a 1970s processor (8086 IIRC) because all the issues have been discovered/understood. IIRC the A380/A350 use something like a 486!

 

[ECML180]

I think with the massive interface changes Microsoft are making now they may start to lose dominance from the small/medium business user market, many employees will want and understand the simple, traditional desktop of XP, 98 and Vista, the new metro thing on Windows 8...no chance!

What alternatives are available...I don't know but I think many companies will be looking for them, and once the OS is not Microsoft, who knows if they'll follow with other software.

 

[Nick W]

Aren't most EMUs operated through a TMS running in Windows 3.1 or not much later? I read that on here a while ago!

This isn't mission critical though. The train will fail safe, and broken down trains on the network aren't considered too big a problem.

Is there less chance of "nasties" creeping into your system when choosing to use Microsoft products than when compared to using "free" alternative products ?

Traditionally, i.e. since the 1990s, the best way to install applications on linux is via repositories. All the software is signed and verified by the operating system maintainers so there is little to no chance of nasties (so far people's attempts have been thwarted).

Obviously Apple and Microsoft have implemented their own app stores, which can be seen as a capitalist version of the repositories (i.e. the apps will cost money). If Microsoft/Apple do their job correctly, there should be no chance of nasties on these platforms.

However one key difference is that the source code for open source programs is available to anyone, so can be scrutinized.

 

[cjp]

In my work we use various specialist design programs which are only available on Windows as the market for these programs is relatively small, and I can't see that changing in the near future.

Sadly we have a killer program like that also otherwise I would have changed us to Linux since Libre Office / Open Office did all we need by way of letter writing, mailmerging and spreadsheets. (Come on it is hard enough to get people to use Styles and Templates let alone more esoteric things in MSWord or Writer.)
So Open Source software works (for free) without having to pay hundreds for Windows and MSOffice.

I would urge people to try Open Source at home, there is nothing to loose but some time for a learning curve

 

[jrhilton]

are Microsoft products genuinely better than the free alternatives?

Looking from the corporate desktop computer point of view, from experience the "free alternatives" to Windows or Office aren't really as free as many people believe if you look at things from a company's point of view.

It is a bit of a generalisation but people who are keen on free/opensource tend to be competent computer users who are not scared to experiment or click around to see what happens before they ask for help. Your average computer user is not like this and in reality needs training if they are to use something they are not used too at a proficient level. And that is the point, by the time you take into account training programs/extra support, the per user cost is often much more than what large companies can get MS software for with volume licencing agreements (and take advantage of not needing much training).

Plus there is always the situation that there is someone in the company (usually finance) who needs excel, then suddenly everyone "needs" it.:roll:

It can make sense for smaller companies or home users who can't take advantage of volume licencing to the same extent though.

 

[SS4]

Looking from the corporate desktop computer point of view, from experience the "free alternatives" to Windows or Office aren't really as free as many people believe if you look at things from a company's point of view.

It is a bit of a generalisation but people who are keen on free/opensource tend to be competent computer users who are not scared to experiment or click around to see what happens before they ask for help. Your average computer user is not like this and in reality needs training if they are to use something they are not used too at a proficient level. And that is the point, by the time you take into account training programs/extra support, the per user cost is often much more than what large companies can get MS software for with volume licencing agreements (and take advantage of not needing much training).

I cannot disagree with what you said but I think, if done properly (ie teaching open source in schools), we can work towards it. I also suspect the average computer user will soon learn the new ways when their job is on the line. It might be a good time for businesses to invest that money with XP, which has had an amazingly long life, expiring soon and who is to say when Vista, 7 or 8 will have support discontinued. Eventually too new hardware will have to be bought (a reason I suspect Vista failed as badly as it did). I am concerned with the way MS is heading both in UI and secure boot.

Perhaps I'm trying to say that weaning a good portion of the country off the MS teat is a benefit that should not be measured monetarily although I am of course rather off topic here. Sadly of course statistics will say whatever you want them to say so nobody will be sure what the true figures will be.

Plus there is always the situation that there is someone in the company (usually finance) who needs excel, then suddenly everyone "needs" it.:roll:

It can make sense for smaller companies or home users who can't take advantage of volume licencing to the same extent though.

Can't argue there and that argument will hold water as long as there isn't a technically savvy boss annoyingly enough. Outlook is probably hardest to replace IMO


I've noticed Microsoft and Office 2010 are starting to prioritise looking nice over actually working. I've been using Office 2010 at work and can generally get stuck if I don't have the keyboard shortcut.

Like NickW I see the use of Microsoft software as a result of vendor lock and companies now cannot leave without disruption (shameless copy and paste there I know ) which is what the MS lobby is using to prevent switching to FLOSS and something to be cut out for good.

 

[jrhilton]

if done properly (ie teaching open source in schools), we can work towards it.

Absolutely - schools should be teaching open source and a bit of programming too I'd say. From what I've seen kids are very quick to pick it all up if it is taught in a fun and interactive way from a young age. They may never use it again but it will give them more confidence in day to day computer usage which is only a good thing.

 

[Nick W]

Slightly off topic, but I was just reading two Microsoft research papers, rendered in LaTeX rather than Microsoft word. Sure enough, their website includes some guidance for LaTeX:
http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/lamport/latex/latex.html

So if the talented members of Microsoft Research favour LaTeX over Microsoft Word, why should anyone else not?

 

[rdeez]

I've just started using Linux (Linux Mint KDE) as my primary OS, mainly out of curiosity to see how things have progressed since my last attempt to switch a few years ago.

Desktop Linux still has some way to go to be an alternative for your 'average' user. The days of needing to use the command line / console day to day have passed, but I've still encountered a couple of issues that have required me to use it (relating to graphics drivers). For those with the time and inclination to troubleshoot the rare issues that do crop up, this is fine, as there's a huge amount of information a Google search away. It's also worth noting that WINE allows (some) windows programs to run on Linux - Office 2010 is one of them - and it's compatability has greatly improved since my last experience, and there are some very good open source alternatives to Windows software available these days, though OpenOffice is IMO not as full featured as Microsoft Office yet, nor as integrated.

Linux Servers however are extremely popular and common, particularly for Web services, due to their low footprint (CPU, memory etc) and excellent stability and 'out of the box's security compared to Windows servers configured for the same purpose.

Linux is also ubiquitous in scientific research for the above reasons and more, not least that it is almost endlessly configurable for any specialised purpose by virtue of being open source.

In all honestly, I don't expect huge shifts in these usage patterns in the near future. Microsoft's ecosystem is one that favours usage of their products in all areas and businesses tend to stick with what they know in internal IT. I can, however, say that I've found using Linux as my desktop OS to be a pleasant experience and I love the huge customisation it offers, but there's progress to be made before I'd recommend it to my mum!