[Sussex] A Brief Guide to Open-Source

[Mark Harrison (Groups)]

On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 19:04 +0000, Matthew Macdonald-Wallace wrote:
> 
> Does anyone know of a good non-technical and succinct description of 
> Free/Open-Source Software and its benefits?  These people are not 
> technical by a long strech, and whilst "It's free" will be a great
> help, 
> they are bound to ask the question "Well, what's wrong with it
> then?"... :)

And this would be one of the reasons why I use the term "OpenSource"
rather than "Free". For a much fuller argument as to why, see "The
Cathedral and that Bazaar" - for the opposing viewpoint, see Geoff
Teale :-) 


I'm the one who started my last talk at the LUG by saying "I'd be a
marketer, not a geek", so I'd better give this a go:



It's been my experience that the moment you say "free" to a business
owner or manager, they think this means "zero cost". Very, very, few
business owners in "end-user" sectors have the time or patience for a
discussion about "free as in speech" being the TRUE meaning of the word
free. - A core principle of sales technique is that you use terms the
way your CUSTOMERS use them if you want to make the sale. If your
customer calls the IT Department the "MIS" department, then so do you in
your sales pitch. If the customer uses the word "portable" instead of
"Laptop", then so do you. If your customer uses the word "free" to mean
"zero cost", then you do the same... Having arguments about what "free"
means is a good thing for interested audiences, but a lousy way to close
sales.


The benefit of OpenSource software that I'd push is that the code used
to develop it is peer reviewed in public, in the same way that most
scientific research is carried out. As a result of this, systems like
Linux have actually used the development skills of significantly LARGER
development teams that, say, MS Windows. As a result of THAT, the
systems tend to have fewer bugs and security loopholes, and consequently
need significantly less day-to-day maintenance and patching to avoid
catching the latest virus.

I then go on to explain that the cost of ownership of a "computer
solution" is made up of several parts - hardware purchase or lease,
software licencing, support, and connectivity (Networks). 

Ten years ago, hardware for an "office PC" might have cost £2,000, with
a licence for MS Windows being £50, and MS Office being £100 - ie about
10% of the acquisition cost. As a result of big economies of scale and
strong competition in the hardware space, hardware costs have fallen
dramatically, but as a result of MS's virtual monopoly in the desktop
software space, they have kept their prices high, so that a PC including
MS Office can typically have 50% of the acquisition cost being a
Microsoft licence cost. In this environment, it's obvious that new
competitors have emerged, one of which is a "loose consortium" of
computer companies from the biggest (IBM, Intel, Sun) to the local
specialists (my company, helping small businesses in your town!) The
technological framework that supports this organisation is called
"OpenSource". Some of this software is, for one reason or another,
released without a licence cost, but there are, of course, still
hardware and support costs.

I'd say something like "We are recommending an OpenSource solution to
you because, taking into account the total cost of ownership, we believe
that this will represent a cost saving over what we could deliver using
a Windows-based solution. Not only is there a licence cost saving for
YOU, dear client, but there is a licence cost and training cost saving
for US, your IT provider, helping us keep our overheads down."

The trick in making the sale, IMO, is to steer the conversation AWAY
from "zero cost" onto "lower total cost of ownership".

If pushed on the "why is there no licence cost?" issue I explain that,
in the early days of computing, much was developed using Government
money, by organisations like Universities. 

Software that is charged for is a relatively recent trend. 

I then explain that a large amount of software that is free (as in
money) is developed for one of four reasons:

1: The company developing it hoped to make money selling support
contracts. Many of these companies are no longer in existence, but the
software remains, and is now developed and supported by others.

2: The software was developed in public-funded organisations. For
example, the World Wide Web was developed at CERN, the European Research
Institute for nuclear physics, and then released free of charge because
we (as taxpayers) had already paid for it.

3: Software is developed or extended by hardware manufacturers because
they want people to use their hardware. (Then you can mention a company
like Intel.)

4: Software is developed by individuals who need a small-scale
application to solve a particular requirement that they have. The useful
applications get added to by other programmers who can extend them to
fix THEIR particular requirements.


The LAST probably reflects 90% of the code out there. The first three
are both demonstrably true (even if not significant) and
convincing-sounding arguments. Of such things are succesful sales
made :-)


Hope this helps,

Regards,

Mark