Why don't companies consider open source more?

[IamElectro]

Originally posted by: ironwing
The Linux vs MS question aside, the rationale I've been fed by our corporate IT folks is that open source = no support. Note that I didn't say that I agree with this rationale just that that was the explanation.

This is true.

 

[Aberforth]

In my opinion open-source is really bad for the economy, it is formed by the same pissed off anti-capitalists who ruined many businesses.

 

[0roo0roo]

initial purchase costs are insignificant compared to support/training costs.

 

[Fayd]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
In my opinion open-source is really bad for the economy, it is formed by the same pissed off anti-capitalists who ruined many businesses.

open source isnt necessarily anti-capitalist.

and your opinion is stupid.

 

[RagingBITCH]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

Originally posted by: blahblah99
What you save in open source software you pay for in hiring employees to implement and support it.

And you don't need to pay people to support expensive crappy apps? (not implying all of them are crappy, but some are)

Also I often hear the argument "but what if something fails?" And? so you fix it the same way you would if something in windows would fail. Any software can fail or have problems. Just have to deal with it like anything else.

From a business perspective, for a mid-large size company, you're better off optimizing and increasing efficiencies elsewhere in the business than you would be having to spend the time and resources to reinstall all new software and retrain everyone on the usage of new software, especially if you already have that sunk cost. (IE, already purchased all that software)

From a ground up perspective for a new company, it's something to consider. I was part of a company that was on it's last legs, (desperately on it's last legs to boot) and for 600+ people in 7 satellite offices + home office, it tasked me to figure out the cost savings of going OpenOffice versus MS Office. (Turns out, none of the software they were using was legal at all) At that point, you're grasping for straws if you're really trying to talk about going open source and saving money. (Which they were...that company going under was probably one of the best things to happen to me, since I was naive and young and stupid)

I'm all for Open Source, especially if it makes sense and is practical, but it's not as simple as "MS Office = $200 per user, Open Source = $free, therefore cost savings = $200 * number of users if we switch to Open Source". There's more to it than what appears to be simple math. Besides, most companies should be able to easily swing a deal with their vendor or MS directly for software.

And no, I'm not just jocking Microsoft b/c I'm a fanboi, there's just more to consider in terms of overall costs, that's all. I'm all for free software, or paying even a donation to support software I use on a regular basis

 

[Aberforth]

Originally posted by: Fayd

Originally posted by: Aberforth
In my opinion open-source is really bad for the economy, it is formed by the same pissed off anti-capitalists who ruined many businesses.

open source isnt necessarily anti-capitalist.

and your opinion is stupid.

Both you and your opinion are stupid.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: Aberforth
In my opinion open-source is really bad for the economy, it is formed by the same pissed off anti-capitalists who ruined many businesses.

That is lul material right there.

I would say it's the opposite. Brings down the costs of an operation helping a company have more money to spend elsewhere, perhaps even hire someone extra and give a job.

And yeah, if you already have MS and already have it paid for, I don't see the huge benefit of jumping on OSS right away. Maybe slowly over the course of like 5 years, as licenses start to expire, but if it's already setup it's probably not worth the hassle of redoing everything.

For a brand new company on the other hand, I really don't see why not consider open source.