EU Commission Study Finds OSS Saves Money

PS3Penguin writes "Groklaw has up a story about an EU Commission's recent findings on the costs savings available from using Open Source Software. From the article: 'Costs to migrate to an open solution are relevant and an organization needs to consider an extra effort for this. However these costs are temporary and mainly are budgeted in less than one year. The major factor of cost of the new solution - even in the case that the open solution is mixed with closed software - is costs for peer or ad hoc training. These are the best example of intangible costs that often are not foreseen in a transition.'"

No surprise

This does not come as a surprise for people having worked in IT and with OSS for some time.

Now, if this report gets public bodies to use and require use of OO/ODF, the large corporations (whose customers or legislators the public bodies tend to be) might move to OO/ODF as well, and then also us small subcontractors could finally junk the P-O-S, all-defaults-are-nonsensical, pay-for-incompatible-upgrades MSOffice. Someone just needs to get the ball rolling...

Damn, it's good to see the EU bureaucracy sometimes produce sensible results!

Re:

"This does not come as a surprise for people having worked in IT and with OSS for some time."

Stand by for a least one patent-imdemnification-fud post in this thread ..

A surprise for some people

I've seen Microsoft advertisements and white papers that assert that there are many hidden costs of using FOSS. You and I know that it's FUD or at least naieve, but people like Gartner Group lap that kind of 'research' up and repeat it.

More interesting

Re:

Not to mention:
Anti virus
Anti spyware
Remote administration software (the default remote desktop has unfixed security flaws)

Re:

OO/ODF do not replace functionality provided by Exchange or Outlook. Until someone provides that kind of service in OO, nobody here is switching to it.

Re:

OO/ODF do not replace functionality provided by Exchange or Outlook.

???

Open Office is an office suite, ODF a file format.

The functionality of Outlook & Exchange can be replaced through the use of CalDAV/LDAP/IMAP/SMTP/NNTP & Evolution.

But

One of open source's most touted benefits is its price. Download the software, install it--and don't pay a penny. That's the theory. But to a surprising number of companies, the price tag--or lack of one--is irrelevant. Believe it or not but in my university there are no problems to choose software. We are not looking the philosofical part of the questin (this is OS, this is not). We literally don't care for that. We look at what does the job best. And we buy and use it. And don't care for the price.

Re:

And how much is tuition at your school?

Re:But

But to a surprising number of companies, the price tag--or lack of one--is irrelevant.

Many of those still choose open source software. There's a reason GNU, Linux, BSD and Apache are so widespread, and it has nothing to do with price.

Did you miss a decade?

Hi, welcome to /.

For approximately 10 years we've been arguing about why a lot of those products are so widely-used despite their (in some cases) inferiority or (in other cases) exorbitant pricing.

Four more of open source's most touted benefits

-It complies with published standards and therefore creates longer-lasting documents
-Since the source code is available, you are not locked in to a single vendor
-There are far, far more people who know the internals of the code and can offer you customizat

Fine, I'll do them

-(of particular interest to govts.) Instead of spending money on licensing fees that go into the Redmond, Washington tax base, you spend it on training, customization, etc. that can be performed by your constituency, and thereby have many generations of re

Fifth and sixth reasons

This is why I prefer OSS: I can test at will anything I use. With commercial software they either give me crippleware or a limited test period. And if I later find I chose the wrong product, I don't have to write a report to management saying I made a mist

Re:

yes, and to most user the "open source" nature is completely irrelevant.

It, like other methods and philosophies has it's pros and cons. I'm glad not everythin is OSS, that way I can use the closed source software that ended up better in some areas, and the

Re:

The fact that it's open source should be considered by any well managed business.
Using proprietary software that locks you in to a single vendor is a HUGE BUSINESS RISK. It's highly dangerous to make your business dependant on a single organization or prod

Re:

In some cases yes, in some cases no. There's a lot that goes into the development of a piece of software. In the end it amounts to this:

what group did the software development setup aggregate for creation of said software?

If it aggregated a good group, the

Re:

Please explain what you mean by "aggregated a [good] group", what "aggregating a group" is, and how a group can be aggregated to a style.

Please tell us, specifically, which closed-source software you run that would have been of lower quality if open source

Re:

Ahh, but that's "free as in beer" software... Not necessarily open source software

There's a lot of free as in beer software that isn't open source. A normal user could care less if it's

free as in beer + free as in source access
or
free as in beer + closed as

Training cost?

I am a manager with a masters degree in engineering. My charge rate is well past $180/hour.

I spend about 1 hour a day telling other members of staff how things work in Excel. That's Excel 97 by the way, which we have had deployed for over 6 years.

Retraining costs only apply if your staff are trained in the first place. In the world where *everyone* puts "Office expert" on their CV almost no one is trained - at least not to a high enough standard to do anything beyond typing a letter.

With the interface also changing in the next version of Word this cost is even more fictional than ever - but it was never legitimate in the first place.

But did your personnel pass those tests?

It's been years since I took 'em, but you know the ones: Office competency tests... "Perform a Mail Merge using the file 'blahblah.txt'". Except that if you use hotkeys, it registers as a wrong answer.

I always wanted to train some sort of domestic animal t

Re:

Retraining costs only apply if your staff are trained in the first place. In the world where *everyone* puts "Office expert" on their CV almost no one is trained

Heh, I don't. I can get by with office applications but I can only barely use a spreadsheet - I

Re:

You, sir, sound scaringly like me. Must be a mathematician thing. I am far more at home with octave than openoffice, and I'd have a much easier time writing an xml table and style it with xstl+css than do the same in kspread or any other spreadsheet :)

Re:

Almost the same here. Word Processors never appealed to me once I got past the "this key combination turns the word bold in-front of your eyes" which was novel at the time. I do all my correspondence in Emacs/LaTeX including invoices.

Spreadsheets were mo

Re:Training cost?

I have just recently put Fedora Core 6 on my new HP dual core 64 bit AMD laptop which I purchased (no dual boot ether). I did have a few minor issues which could have been solved with a HP configured install and recovery disk instead of the Microsoft XP professional it came with. So far I can actually do nearly all my work with this OS with the exception of some Microsoft specific solutions that requires I use my company laptop but 95% of my work can be done using FC6.

For a scientist or professional engineer I would strongly suggest a Linux solution (FC6, OpenSUSE, Scientific Linux ... etc) than a Microsoft one even though you can get most of the applications you like for a MS OS (sometimes free as well) at least you will fully own all your data and never have to be dependent on a proprietary Operating System. Actually IMHO LaTeX is actually easier to use than IMHO most word processors and the result is normally very professional. This is especially true if you need to write mathematical papers. You still need to know how to use a test editor though. As far as any type of development that requires maths a good Linux distro can provide everything you need (if you do any type of statistics have you tried "R" since it is like "S Plus") and again for free or cheaply.

If anyone writes to me stating "Oh you had problems with a Linux install on your laptop then there is a problem with Linux". My simple answer is I will give you FC6 or OpenSUSE and Microsoft XP (legitimate copy) and then ask you to install the OS and configure it on a reasonably new laptop (I am being fair here) and I am quite sure you are going to have more problems with the Microsoft OS than with a Linux OS. Since I now have a working Laptop with FC6 (what do you think I am using to type this) I can easily create a recovery disk that could be used to configure all laptops of this type. The first install is always the hardest after that you can easily roll out an OS on equivalent machines, this is how most PC vendors install an MS OS.

Now back on topic. If you are a manager and it has been put to you that you need to spend vast amounts of money to retrain your staff to the switch from MS Office to Open Office, then I would suggest firing people and I am not just speaking as a professional engineer I am speaking as a manager. Most MS documents can be imported into Open Office (including many with macros) with little if any changes needed. The only problem you have is when you try to read an OO document back into MS Office. That in itself should tell you how standards compliant Microsoft is.

The biggest problem an organisation is going to have making a switch to Open Standards (note I did not say Open Source) are the managers who will most likely say "Oh it is not like MS Windows" or who have made bad business decisions although to be fair to them they may have made the right business decision at the time, that have locked the company into proprietary solutions.

Sometimes you have to force change (the engineer in me speaking) otherwise things will never change since most organisations are very conservative and won't change unless a decision comes down from the top but sometimes the top managers are even more conservative or love to organise committee's, which usually means nothing changes.

Re:

I spend about 1 hour a day telling other members of staff how things work in Excel. That's Excel 97 by the way, which we have had deployed for over 6 years.

When I was a very young - okay, not that young, but young - sysadmin, we had a secretary who was con

Re:

When I was a very young - okay, not that young, but young - sysadmin, we had a secretary who was constantly asking me over to help her out with something in MS Word or Powerpoint. [Story about how secretary doesn't know Office]

Hmm, did she smile when yo

Re:

Hmm, did she smile when you helped her? Flick her hair back? Give out hints about movies she'd like to go to, but doesn't have anyone to go with?

I think that the pretty girl (or hot guy, for those inclined) who calls over the tech support dude to see if he

Re:

You are exactly right. Every day I run into a question about how to use an office program that has been on the market for years, if not closer to a decade. In my opinion, this is why moving people to F/OSS is a no brainer. If they have to be trained anyway

Re:

Google hits for: +"OpenOffice" training
approximately 1.3M

Google hits for: +"Microsoft Office" training
approximately 6.4M

(You can try other forms such as "Open Office" or "MSOffice" or what not, but that will just

I've Been Saying This For Some Time

No mattter WHAT it costs to transition your people, those costs can be amortized over time. Whereas paying proprietary software license fees is FOREVER. By definition, sooner or later OSS HAS to cost you less - not even taking the intangibles of avoiding lock-in, flexibility, etc. into account.

The only issue is whether you can afford the upfront costs - and that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. And you solve that issue by doing your migration over time according to a PLAN.

Planning? A novel idea for most IT management who are usually locked in to a crisis management mode...

Re:

sooner or later OSS HAS to cost you less

And once you run into the limits of one tool, you have documentation and interfaces so you can extend it, or work around limitations. Yeah I know, this may entail going back to the source. Or you can just go to a different tool because you have compatible

Re:

Have tou ever heard someone in the next office over going click, click, clock rapidly about 50 times? I'll bet you they were using Excel.

If that was me, it's Minesweeper.

Bad argument

The saving over time has to be larger than interest on the initial investment for the free software (or any other cost saving measure) to be a good investment. Otherwise, you are better off putting the money in the bank.

The "intangibles" as you call it, a

Expect a response saying the exact opposite

... commissioned by a company that's a Microsoft partner. But no, honestly, it will be independent; we even paid extra for them to put "an independent study" in their abstract.

It /always/ happens, and I've not seen a "Upgrading to Vista is cheaper than Lin

Re:Expect a response saying the exact opposite

[SARCASM]
Don't you know Vista is Free with purchase of a PC?
[/SARCASM]

Re:

oh, I am quite certain that the next study that says that MS is a better low cost solution will be totally independent AND will not be "funded" by MS. In fact, it will be the same way that SCO was not funded by MS or Sun.

Training costs

It would be interesting, then, to see a comparison of training costs between switching to an OSS solution and upgrading to Vista and Office 2007. Certainly a pure OSS solution is going to require more training because there are more changes involved, and some of the differences are significant. Still given the easier incremental transitions you're likely to get on the OSS upgrade treadmill (which tends to have more regular, smaller, upgrades) compared to MS, you might be able to claim an offset in future training costs. At the very least it would be interesting to see how such costs stack up in a variety of cases. If training to the only really significant cost for OSS then this next upgrade round from MS might see a few more companies deciding to do an OSS roll out when they finally get around to upgrading.

Where is the control group?

I always see the studies about the costs of migrating to Linux. But they never adequately explain the control group.
To be of any real value, you have to compare the Linux migration costs to some control group.

Here are some possible control groups:
1. Group transitioning from Windows95/98 to Window XP to Windows Vista
2. Group transitioning from Windows95/98/XP to Mac
3. Group transitioning from Mac to Windows Vista
4. Group transitioning from Windows95/98/XP to LTSP
5. Group transitioning from Linux to... Linux?
6. Group transitioning from Windows NT to Windows 2003 to Windows Vista

It seems that the control group in most of these studies is only imaginary: Windows XP with no transition.
That control group doesn't exist. It is never actually included in the studies. It is only conjectured.

What is the value of a study that uses an imaginary control group?

Re:

Quite possibly the most intelligent post ever by AC. Please look and mod up... or copy, paste and take credit for the parent post.

I guess they never got the memo

Wasn't it well established in an open letter [slashdot.org] that open source is dangerous and could derail the European economy? :)

At this point, I would somewhat dissagree

The forces who do not want to see OSS succeed for their own financial reasons will do what ever it takes to make sure your costs go up. If Linux usage spikes next month (for example) I would except to see a rise in underhanded tactics as well.

Lies

Of course the EU would say that, Europeans are socialists and Linux is communism. [theregister.co.uk]

Want the truth? Get the facts [microsoft.com] where they are totally straight and objective, from honest American corporations.

(Insert tongue in cheek)

That loud clapping noise you hear..

..it's the sound of millions of Slashdotters facepalming at once.

Price doesn't matter

Vista will make cost irrelevant.

Lots of companies and most governments are going to be mandated to use whole-disk encryption for laptops and desktops in the next year or so. The easiest way to do this is to get your hands on Vista Ultimate or Vista Enterprise.

This is a problem.
Vista Ultimate is a consumer product and you cannot get it via a volume license agreement, so that's out.
Vista Enterprise is available via volume & enterprise agreements but you must have software assurance agreement in place.

To get software assurance, you pay Microsoft a "seat fee" equal to the number of computers that you have that aren't:
  - Servers
  - Applicances (VPN devices, Google Search boxes, etc)
  - Kiosks (ATM's, POS terminals, etc)
  - Embedded devices (Treos, Blackberries, etc)

That means that you'll pay Microsoft for Macs, Linux machines, FreeDOS machines... anything that is a workstation. So switching to Linux won't save a time, because you'll pay Microsoft anyway!

Re:

IBM's laptops have hardware encryption of the disk on board... and got it for something like 10 years. You don't need Vista for harddisk encryption... and Vista's encryption is even not the best solution (for Vista) available, there are several 3rd. party

Re:

Or they will migrate to Linux with full disk encryption.
All we need, is to produce distros that install in this way by default (otherwise encrypting the whole drive can be a pain to set up)

OSS might save money...

... but I still prefer ALSA.

Contrarian view point

Well, MSFT had how much sales last year? 40 Billion Dollars? What is the total expenditure of all the Fortune 500 companies put together? 2 trillion dollars? MSFT is not taking big enough chunk of the companies to matter.

Re:

True enough, if you want a POS system, you need Windows.

Amazing

Hell, there isn't even a good equivalent for Quickbooks/Peachtree that's OSS. It's absolutely mind-boggling that any small businesses could ever go completely open source WITH NO FINANCIAL SOFTWARE (Yes, I know about GNUCash: it's a joke).

Simply amazing