Open source / free software vs proprietary software – what is best for business?

1. Kaido KikkasTallinn University *** Estonian IT SocietyPaving for eFutureReykjavik, September 13, 2007 Open source / free software vs proprietary software – what is best for business? The distribution of this document is governed by the GNU Free Documentation License version 1.2 or later. See the license at http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/fdl.html

2. For those unfamiliar with the free world... ... these terms and concepts are worth studying: • free software • open source • GNU General Public License • copyleft • hacker • hacker ethic • Linus' Law on work motivationNB! Due to the presentation's small timeframe, additional arguments, data and links are provided by the complementary webpage (including these slides) athttp://www.kakupesa.net/kakk/docs/reykjavik2007/

3. Looking at the title... • I'd like to ask about a small detail:Best for WHOSE business...? • I try to keep the user's (as opposed to vendor's) perspective • Plus, in the next slides I try to look at a business considering a shift from proprietary to free model and give some arguments to support the decision

4. What would a business expect from its IT? • doing the necessary thing • reasonable acquiring costs (esp. SME) • reasonable running costs • reasonable (re)training costs • reliability • interoperability • security • support • flexibility, extensibility and scalability • choice of services and providers (no lock-in)‏

5. 1. doing the necessary thing • All software regardless of licensing model can be appropriate. Or not. • A caveat – when moving to software with different licensing model, do not assume that all your previous knowledge remains valid. Or to put it simpler – Linux is NOT Windows • Yet the added benefit of open source code allows for better modifications. Also, the market is open – one can opt for in-house improvements or choose the best partner instead of paying extorting prices to a market dominator

6. 2. acquiring costs • The smaller the enterprise, the more important (typically) issue it is • FOSS results in large savings in this stage (probably not denied even by proprietary vendors)‏ • But even in the free world, going blindly for the seemingly cheapest option may not be wise • In the business world (somewhat opposed to the NGO, education and private spheres) using commercially-backed solutions (which may cost quite a lot) may be justified. But not always – an important factor is the in-house IT capacity

7. 3. running costs • Similar to the former, but has more variables in it • Leaving your homework undone may sometimes hit quite hard • Due to the increasingly unreasonable 'intellectual property' system, may run into various artificial obstacles (patents etc) when not careful. In Europe, the problem is much smaller than in the US • Earlier, finding qualified staff was somewhat an issue (not much anymore, but depends on the location)‏

8. 4. (re)training costs • Can be substantial when moving large numbers of employees to a new platform • In essence, do not depend on licensing model • Often cited as a prohibitive factor in moving to free models – yet the same applies to proprietary systems • E.g. for a typical desktop user, moving from MS Office 2000 to the new 2007 is arguably more difficult than moving to OpenOffice.org • Free model can result in more flexible training – again, you do not need “Authorized Trainers”

9. 5. reliability • Depends also on the maintenance skills of the tech staff – incompetent technicians can work wonders (in a negative sense)‏ • Free systems (e.g. BSD or Linux) have excellent reliability marks worldwide

10. 6. interoperability • Proprietary systems tend to be interoperable as long as you use the products of the same company • Sometimes interoperability is considered directly counterproductive to the company's goals (the earlier case of MS Office documents, or also the current OOXML debate). Conflict of interests? • Free systems have more potential here, although it should not be taken for granted – in some cases the initial author does not have need for it and thus will not stress it • Open standards are the key – but more than often, there is a strong correlation with software freedom

11. 7. security • A long-time plague in MS software: Trojan horses and viruses are 99% Windows-specific (in fact, a Linux virus is like the Yeti – some people claim it exists. Never seen one yet)‏ • Being locked into a single platform also contributes towards weaker security – an attack will only need a single vector • A side remark: regardless of platform, the biggest security risk is always located between the keyboard and the chair => a training issue

12. 8. support • At the first glance, this one is a clear win for proprietary systems. “Linux has no support”... • Actually, surprisingly large number of free systems have commercial support available. Moreover, the market is open (again) and thus it is much harder to charge excessive sums for support services • Support can be obtained both in a traditional way (by purchasing the software; e.g. Red Hat) or from third parties

13. 9. flexibility, extensibility and scalability • Clearly better in free systems. Examples: • Most of the Top 500 supercomputers run Linux • Free NetBSD operating system supports more than 50 hardware platforms • Flexibility is an important factor in open source, so is extensibility. Both stem from the lack of either technical (lack of source code) or legal (prohibitive licensing) obstacles

14. 10. Choice • Monoculture is dangerous – both in biology and in technology (some call it inbreeding)‏ • Proprietary vendors often strive to create large, unified solutions on a single (their own) platform, leaving it more vulnerable to threats • Also, having achieved a lock-in on a customer, the vendor is able to charge remarkably higher prices than in the case of open market

15. Where proprietary approach may make sense • In highly professional, specialised fields with turnkey solutions handed out (e.g. composers)‏ • the client can afford to pay for support • the client's time is expensive – losing access to his/her tools would cost much more than calling for a specialist • But even here I'd consider a free approach for greater flexibility and playing room for support • The more common the application, the more obvious should using the free model be

16. Personal opinion: if I had a business • I'd run my IT sector roughly as follows • MS Windows only where specific applications demand it; preferrably also locked into a separate network cluster; prefer XP over Vista as long as possible; using free applications on Windows where possible (app compatibility)‏ • MacOS X is an option for presentation/sales • The rest would run on free systems (exact methods – support etc - depend on circumstances)‏ • And I would be far from the first one doing that

17. Conclusion • Free models have been discussed from a variety of viewpoints – in this presentation we left aside ethical and social issues and focused on professional ones only (my personal reasons to avoid proprietary software are 50/50 a business decision and an ethical statement). But even these are sufficient • Thus, my point is: BE BUYERS AWARE :)‏

18. Contact: Kaido Kikkas kaido.kikkas@kakupesa.net http://www.kakupesa.net Thank you!